Re: [-empyre-] Re: empyre Moore N = c (G.H. Hovagimyan)

GH replies:
There was a point where you could read supposedly "subjective" art criticism and notice that it was codifed and that the words and sentences used to describe an art work were pretty much the same from writer to writer. I don't know about in Europe but in America in Art News and early Artforum magazines that was the case. I remember in the 1960's going around to all the white male painters lofts and listening to the language. If pressed I could probably parrot what they said to this day.

Both Isabelle and Marc talk about, starting from zero. Maybe the idea is to start from one and then expand the circle.

On Mar 14, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Saul Ostrow wrote:

This all seems like th e old subjective method to me --

If an art critic, does not want to use philosophy or theory to write about art that is pretty terrific I'd say. It means that he/she is not satisfied with the methods that have been used in the past. I think that is brilliant.

as for these questions they require not only theory and philosophy but also history and
introspection and maybe psychoanalysis

The questions you need to ask when you look at an art work are; "why
is  this here, what does this mean, how does this make me feel?"

empyre forum

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