Hi Rasheed,
RASHEED
>And what ever happened to 'art pour l'art?' Art for art's sake? I
know that
>not all art can be this way; there has to be some social context or
some
>pointer to a higher purpose.
That's all very well, but what is "art's sake" - what is its purpose?
Purpose/sake is one of those SO platypus words. I think that the
question can mislead, so we should use a simpler form: What is art? That
takes us back to the original question.
>But some art (I think of Dali here) is
>expressive of emotions, desires, or dreams, and has no tangible social
>message.
I like Dali, and think it is full of messages. We don't necessarily have
to spell it out in "tangible" terms.
RASHEED
>It's my opinion that all it takes for good art to be produced, like
>Pirsig says in ZAMM, is for the artist to enter the state of
consciousness in
>which nothing exists outside the work being done. Then the work
produced will
>have value. . . . Of course that doesnt exclude technical ability,
which is
>something one must develop with time.
I don't think this has to be universal. I agree that some art can come
out of a dreamlike state, but the artist also has to wake up to
communicate his dream.
>But you are right in saying that art must have some kind of static
Quality to
>prevent it from being forgotten. Although the Dynamism is what sells a
>piece, it must have value at a static level to be considered good art.
I think that my long-held view of DQ as potential is useful here. Art is
EVOCATIVE of the static patterns of value.
The potential is REALIZED when someone actually experiences the art.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST