bnsaijim

By no contention, Andy must be referring to IBC's days of posts on the matter. I think it takes a full week to be a matter of contention ;^)

I find it interesting that the pottery list argues much the same issues...

Anyhow, I agree with Andy that definitions must not be compromised, not even for little Johnny's self esteem. Granted, there are societal interpretations and contexts, but there must be some underlying universal essence to meet the definition, especially with the particularly slippery amoeba, "art"...

So...I hit Webster's and basically it's summed up as requiring both craft and creative imagination especially in aesthetic works. But I see no limitation TO aesthetic works...

So, craft is not art, but art does require craft i.e., skill, learning knowledge... and it can be functional... So does this mean that "Piss Christ" is really art?

Does extremism and shock value count for creative imagination or does it beat a dead horse? Are these "artists" really craftsmen working an assemblyline at the shock art factory... or, to bring it back to topic, the mushroom canopied driftwood bonsai studio....

It says nothing of messages, emotions, how it makes the artist feel, fulfiling his rights to create....

I often think I see a perversion of Bruce Lee's philosophy "The best style is no style" in art and other endeavours- rules put boundaries and limitations. Even the simple "common sense" rules of knowing one's media seems to be thought of as too restrictive. But what is really required is a mastery of the rules and one's self that sets you free of stylistic limitations, artistic principles, regionalistic schools...

Well gotta run to class...


Sincerely,

Jim

Advertisement