Re: [-empyre-] Re: pure art?
Dear Nemo and all,
At 2315 20020921, Nemo Nox wrote:
> Hideki wrote:
> >Then what is the reference point with which the
> >critic judge "this is pure or impure"?
> I don't think that distinction should be made
> at all, mainly because it's not a realistic one
> but also because it's too often used to pass
> subjective judgement disguised as objective
>From the Methodicist point of view,
Ad Reinherdt's statement "Art as art is art" should
be considered "realistic."
That is the reason why I think that distinction
should be made.
> >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 designs"?
> Do we need an antonym for that?
Yes, of course, when we are talking about "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"?
> Do you think Brahms' music was untouched by other
> forms of art?
I know he wanted to be untouched by other forms of art.
> >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.
> The will of the creator may be strong but there is
> also the subconsciousness working against it. Also,
My understanding of talking about subconsciousness is the
tradition of surrealism. I began methodicism to deny the
tradition of surrealism, because I think surrealism is
one of the root of every today's "license and indolence"
which links the thinking "whatever is OK."
And I already said as "of course any forms of art are
contaminated by other art form," which already included
your reference to the subconsciousness.
> you are swamped with external input all the time.
What do you mean from this saying?
Does the "external input" mean the reference to the past art?
If so, the reason is that the methodicism is like neoclassicism.
Or, the method art is "art about art."
Or another saying, the method art is "art for art's sake" which
denies "art for life's sake."
> There is no way that can be cleansed. Even the decision
> to create "pure art" is already a contamination, as are
> the tools used for that.
This saying sounds like phenomenologists.
I think phenomenologist saying as a moratorium in a bad sence
but is persuasive in today's situatiion.
I know that we cannot extract only one side from dualism,
but this fact does not excuse being a moratorium which
caused today's sensualism and the mob.
In the first methodicist manifesto I have written as below:
"Meaninglessness, which is what tautologies mean, does not
excuse sensualism nor the mob, and it rather requests stoicism
and discipline for its authorization."
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and