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

At 2249 20020925, Nemo Nox wrote:
> Hideki wrote:
> >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."
> I don't understand how art can be seen as not
> connected to humanity. It is created by people.
> It is consumed by people. It does not exist
> without people.

I have already written that I eat meals as a citizen (in your 
word "people"), not as an artist.  
But I create artworks as an artist, not as a citizen.
And I am against the saying "an artist is a citizen before s/he 
is an artist," because an artist can die for his/her art.
But your pointing out is reasonable at the same time, although 
it is quite ordinary aesthetics problem.
If you want to know more about like these problems, you are 
better to read books on aesthetics because my explanation above 
is also quite ordinary, not so specific.

> >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.
> Now you connect art with the artist's intentions.
> I ask again, how can it be not connected to humanity
> then? And if support is not as important as the will
> of the artist, don't you think the artist acts as a
> support himself?

I noticed at the misunderstanding between you and I.
In my meanings, the word "artist" does not connect to
humanity.  Artist's will is not the citizen's will.
Remember the word "art for art's sake" sometimes defend
artists from being called immoral.  I am saying that 
humanity and art are opposite in some case.

> >It is not important whether it contains impurities or not "as 
> >the result." Whether it contains impurities or not "as the purpose" 
> >is important.
> If purpose is more important than result, why bother
> creating the art object? Why not instead write an
> essay explaining the purpose?

Exactly this your idea yielded the conceptualism in the past.
I have already written about the points in common and the 
points in difference between conceptualism and my method art.


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.