Dan Wilson on sun 30 jun 96
>For each of us, our own quest as artists in essence constitutes our own search
>for a definition of art, but that definition is entirely personal and
>constantly in transition. As soon as we try to verbalize it, we limit what art
>can be, cutting off our options. So why waste time trying to define it, or
>even thinking about defining it. It is the artist's nemisis.
This sounds like a definition. Or maybe an attempt to limit our options.
Does this statement reflect current thinking in this area? Is this the
current paradigm?
>To assume that beauty is a constant across time and culture is unrealistic.
>Beauty is culturally specific, although concepts of beauty often coincide over
>time and culture.
If beauty is not a constant across time and cultures how can concepts of
beauty coincide across time and cultures?
>And what is this razor's edge of beauty? Again, this is severely limiting. I
>am sad for anyone stuck on such an edge,
Don't be sad. Be happy. Because of confusions of one kind or another, alot
of us never reach the "razors edge" of beauty.
> And of course it is fun and worthwhile to discuss whether or not a thing
>is beautiful, >but as soon as you start to define parameters of beauty,
>you limit the possibilities >and erect barriers to creativity.
While I understand the logic of this statement I do not agree with it. Well
defined parameters of art and beauty do not erect barriers to creativity.
Creativity is the force that redefines parameters and definitions. When
there are no parameters and no definitions, there is no need for
creativity.As a consequense,no movement.
Respectfuly,
Dan
Bill Aycock on sun 30 jun 96
At 10:17 AM 6/30/96 EDT, Dan Wilson wrote: *** in part, and inpart in
response to Vince (bless him) ***
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>This sounds like a definition. Or maybe an attempt to limit our options.
>Does this statement reflect current thinking in this area? Is this the
>current paradigm?
>
"Current Thinking" sounds like asking another to tell you what is OK-
"Paradigm"-- in my Dictionary, the second meaning given is 'an example or
model'- which is what it sounds like you mean. The minute you pin something
to a definition, and make it conform to a model, you do limit your options .
(The first definition has to do with lists of word inflectional forms)
>
>If beauty is not a constant across time and cultures how can concepts of
>beauty coincide across time and cultures?
>
Vince said "often coincide", not "always coincide"- there is a magnitude of
difference. Beauty is NOT a constant across time and cultures- although
enough examples of similarity can be found to create the coincidences .
>> And of course it is fun and worthwhile to discuss whether or not a thing
>>is beautiful, >but as soon as you start to define parameters of beauty,
>>you limit the possibilities >and erect barriers to creativity.
>
>While I understand the logic of this statement I do not agree with it. Well
>defined parameters of art and beauty do not erect barriers to creativity.
There, in a nutshell, lies a truth- we DO dissagree. So be it
See also--- the well worded statements by Sue Hutchen.
Bye-- Bill, on Persimmon Hill, contemplating the beauty of the colors
surrounding a Bee sting.
| |
|
