I'm not sure where this little ramble is leading. I think it comes from a feeling that everything which comes under the heading of "what art does" is interrelated at a fundamental level, even though those interrelations might also reflect vast differences in experience and outlook.
It's a ramble whose route I'm happy to follow too, if panting a bit to keep up. I think one destination that it
might be leading to is the idea that there must be something which could usefully be called 'human nature' which would account for these interrelationships. Now I'm fine with that. It seems to me more or less self-evident that there must be such a thing (although describing it correctly is quite another kettle of pollock). But there are those (particularly on the Left?) who don't like the idea of 'human nature' at all ...
