No, look, you've fallen over your own argument here.
How can logic be 'set free' when logic is an inferrence? Also, there has always been the possibility of a rationalisation of art, what with rationalisation being an inferrence as well.
(rnuk http://flickr.com/rnuk, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:00, archived)

It's not logic per se that's being set free, but the inner logic of the aesthetic sphere.

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:01, archived)

Logic has no constraints from which to be set free though
logic is not bound by any rules as it is inferred from actions. It doesn't matter which fancy faux-sesquipedalian parameters you want to impose on it, it will not be imposed upon. Logic doesn't work like that. Ergo, your post is guff.
(rnuk http://flickr.com/rnuk, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:05, archived)

Go back and brush up on your Godel.
All systems of logic have restraints.
( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:06, archived)

I don't see what mathematical logic has to do with an argument about the freedom and/or rationalisation of art

(rnuk http://flickr.com/rnuk, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:10, archived)

Then look harder.

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:12, archived)

You're doing a particularly shoddy job of convincing me of your argument.
'Then look harder' only serves to convince me of my own point, and to isolate your point as invalid or, even, non-existent. Try again. Using words.
(rnuk http://flickr.com/rnuk, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:15, archived)

*points*

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:16, archived)

Be careful Russel
You can never tell what someone who spells rationalisation with a z might do next.
( WormuIus, Sun 10 May 2009, 12:03, archived)