Re: [-empyre-] Re: pure art?
Thank you for the reply for my just the English questions...
> Pure art is often used in an elitist sense,
> judging impure what the critic do not like.
> Being strict, either all art is pure or all
> art is impure.
Maybe I know that.
Then what is the reference point with which the critic
judge "this is pure or impure"?
> >I used this word from the below recognition:
> >-- pure art v.s. commercial art (like illustration)
> If you sell it, it' commercial art. In this
> sense, a Jasper Johns painting is as commercial
> as an advertising illustration. You would have
> to include the concept of intent to establish
> a difference.
Oh I have musunderstood the word "commercial art."
(The Japanese word for "commercial art" means just
the illustrations and graphic designs.)
Then what is the antonym of "illustrations and graphic
BTW I used to be an illustrator in early 90's.
That is another reason for my conversion to "pure art."
But my meaning of pure art include Jasper Johns paintings.
> >-- pure art v.s. composite art (like dramatic art)
> Again, which art is not composite, meaning not
> contaminated by other art forms?
Then what is the antonum of "composite art"?
Do you know the famous controversy between Brahams
and Wagner of the 19th century?
My understanding is that Wagner to be "composite art,"
while Brahms to be "pure art," is this wright or
should I use another word for "pure art"?
(Sorry this is only my English question.)
Yes of course any forms of art are contaminated by
other art form. But there is the will of the creator,
which want to be less or more contaminated.
Or, what is the Greenburg's saying?
I understood his theory as reductionism of art
which purify itself, discarding the other elements
of other forms of art.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and