[-empyre-] Re: pure art?

Hideki wrote:
>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."

I really don't see the need for antonyms in that
context. What's the antonym of an apple? What's
the antonym of a B flat? What's the antonym of a
cloud? If you feel the need to tell the difference
between the art that goes in a magazine and the 
art that goes in a gallery why not call it magazine 
art and gallery art? At least it's a realistic (and
possibly objective) criteria, not unrealistic (and
possibly judgmental) like impure art and 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.

Well, I want to win the lottery but that doesn't
make me a millionaire. :-)

>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."

You can deny surrealism but you cannot deny the way 
the human mind works.

>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.

Then how can you claim there is such a thing as pure art?

>>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?

Yes, everything, past art, tv commercials, fashion
on the streets, movies, gallery exhibits, concerts,
your neighbor singing in the morning, everything.

>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."

I understand the idea, but I don't agree this would
make pure art. Your art is just contaminated by a 
different set of impurities.

>This saying sounds like phenomenologists.

Art is phenomenon. If it's just an idea, the idea
of art, it is not art but just an idea. And even
that idea is not supportless - you need a language
(a mental language) to express it to yourself.

Nemo Nox             http://www.burburinho.com
pensamentos despenteados para dias de vendaval

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.