From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 15:08:21 BST
Hi Rick,
> STEVE
> In talking about art, the art is always
>> missing....
>
> RICK
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
What I meant is that when we try to explain what is of high quality about a
particular work of art, we can never really put our fingers on it. We just
know it when we see it.
Rick
>However, if you are saying that conversation about art
>isn't itself the art being discussed, then I'd have to ask you what the
>significance of your observation is. I mean, conversation about snow-tires
>isn't a set of snow-tires... but so what?
>What are the limitations of conversation about art? And does conversation
>about art have greater limitations (or less value) than conversation about
>other subjects? If so, why?
Steve:
Good questions. I don't really know. Could it be that the more dynamic
something is, the harder it is to bind it to words? Maybe you are right and
there is no difference between talking about art and talking about snow
tires. On the other hand, when you talk about snow tires, you aren't trying
to put your finger on quality. You are more likely to want to talk about
what they are for.
Conversation does help establish static patterns upon which to base an
appreciation of quality in art. I think this is erin's point of art
appreciation as a social activity. With a common background we can have a
similar experience of art, but I don't think that art appreciation is simply
a matter of aligning one's taste with the artsy community.
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 17:01:20 BST