Re: [-empyre-] Re: pure art?

At 0748 20020924, Nemo Nox wrote:

> 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.

Hi Nemo,

OK, the word "magazine art" and "gallery art" can be 
taken in this context.
But illustrators' works are not for only magazines, also
on some advertisements or any, and all are made by someone
else other's order, and no made as "art as art."
When I want to include these meanings, I am afraid
that the word "magazine art" is not so convenient.

> >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.

There are two standing points.
One is that the art connects to humanity.
The other is that the art and humanity are separated.
The former is maybe your standing point and surrealist's 
and is close to the thinking of "art for life's sake."
The latter is my standing point and some (not all) 
conceptualist's and is the thinking of "art for art's sake."
Aesthetics says that bith these two standing points have 
contradiction in itself.
But I do not want to be in a moratorium that denies both
side, so I dare to take the latter.
>From my latter point of view, the fact hat I cannot deny 
the way the human mind works is not the matter of art.
Of course I know your former point of view, which think 
the human mind work as the matter of art.

> >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?

See Jim Andrews's argument.
One cannot claim and prove a thing as even "art."
Only thing is that one's will to want to call it art or 
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.

Ohhh I noticed at some my misunderstandiongs...
Your meaning is that, everything, I understood.

> >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.

It is not important whether it contains impurities or 
not "as the result."
Whether it contains impurities or not "as the purpose" 
is important.
But the range of the word "pure" is not so wide as
you think in these contexts.
Again I write here,
I used the word "purity"
1) against composite art,
2) against illustrations.
In the meaning of 2) you have suggested me to use 
"gallery art" against "magazine art," it is OK for me.
Then what word do you suggest me against "composite art"?
What is the abstract word for symphonies and sonatas and quartets
which Brahms pushed against the operas and musical dramas
which Wagner pushed?  This is only the English question.

> >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.

I do not say art is phenomenon nor an idea, either.
Art is art, but this tautology is not art, either.
Only we can say "art should be ...".
My methodicist manifesto is only one of "art should be ..."s.
So it may happen that your "art should be ..." and my 
"art should be ..." conflict.  But even this conliction
would be complementary to each other in this world, I think.


Hideki Nakazawa
Those who want to subscribe for the email bulletin "Method," 
free bimonthly, contact me at

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