Re: [-empyre-] Re: empyre Moore N = c (G.H. Hovagimyan)
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?"
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and