pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 27 apr 04
mentions...
Hi Kathy,
I find, for my own interests, that the term 'Art', covers so
broad an area of implication, that without having attending,
qualifying conditions or descrpitions, it is about useless
as (so broad ) a term.
So too...the term 'Function'...just as above...
I think...that just might be some of the problem here.
(Lastly, and almost allways parenthetically, are the
possibilities any of us may feel, as I certainly have felt
or yet feel at times, to need to be able to justify or
rationalize things to the satisfaction of my tormentors, as,
I imagine, we all learned to do to perry bullys and
impositions and invasive meddlings of whatever petty
tyrants. These rationalizations or justifications may be
found to underlie, or to lie, below and amid many other
vexations of 'definition', as well as of 'reason', rather
than per-se, we had merely been curious to see if we could
define something in some way, or enjoy 'reason' in some more
innocent way. Too, almost everything has been defined for
us, by others [ - the bracketed sub-parenthetical acronym
being as FuBo? then? ]...and...(anyway) I am not so sure I
trust them to have done that...nor, should I encourage
anyone to trust them to have done that...or, one does well
to elect those 'others' carefully...if at all, whose
definitions we may oblige or accept...)
Yes?
Phil
el vee
----- Original
> Hi Phil,
>
> What you say is pretty much what I mean. My present
concern is the
> bifurcation of art into form and function, whichever one
whoever deems
> it so says is a priority.
>
> The division between the materially useful and the
unnecessary, when
> taken to extremes by theorists and adherents, allows that
only luxury
> qualifies as art or as culture and that functional objects
which meet
> our material needs are base economic products.
>
> Unfortunately, the corollary is that only the functional
has intrinsic
> meaning and socially accepted economic value;
non-functional forms and
> objects, art and luxury, are placed outside in a
subjectively
> independent authoritarian realm where value is relative
and preordained
> and may not even exist. And therein lies my problem with
this whole
> theory that splits objects into utility and luxury.
>
> The developments of form and the intentionality behind its
creation is
> based on either pre-conceived dictates or a discovery
process, with or
> without applied purpose. The primary difference, if there
is one, is
> not between useful and useless*, or even intent and
purpose, but lies
> in a range between contrivance within established schema
and the
> development of new forms.
>
> Just as form outranks ideas and theories by its
ineluctable presence,
> our needs can also be met by luxury, just as the useful
can embody and
> reveal form and awareness.
>
> As Wes Rolley wrote <but then who
> am I?>>, I aver that I may not understand why things are
the way they
> are, or even what they mean, but I know what I like. That
may be the
> easy way out, but I like form. And it doesn't matter
whether it's
> useful or extravagantly luxurious. It can be in a
painting, teapot,
> exhaust stack, bridge, orange or swan.
>
> If that's a cult of form, then okay, fine, it has the
power to balance
> and offset our growing dependence on materialism. But it's
about time I
> made something utterly useless and possibly perceived as
narcissistic
> or even nihilistic.
>
> Kathy Forer
> Lat: 40N Lon: 74W
> rain, more rain
>
>
> * or functional and luxurious, they all work as antipodes
>
> The more I read about ceramics, the more it seems like
quantum
> mechanics, and what I've been doing is a wave theory of
relativity.
> Nonetheless, I believe, if not in a grand unifying theory,
nor in a
> topsy-turvy anything-goes world, then in a mediating,
bridging factor,
> a realm where both function and form hold equal sway. Long
after the
> theory and the practice, the object remains, and our
perception and
> interaction is a singularly unique event that supersedes
all others.
> Left with that, everything can have meaning, only our
individual value
> systems judge how it touches us.
| |
|
