[-empyre-] Re: pure art?

["Nemo Nox" <lists@nemonox.com>]

Hideki wrote:
>Then what is the reference point with which the 
>critic judge "this is pure or impure"?

I don't think that distinction should be made
at all, mainly because it's not a realistic one
but also because it's too often used to pass
subjective judgement disguised as objective
classification.

>Oh I have musunderstood the word "commercial art."
>(The Japanese word for "commercial art" means just 
>the illustrations and graphic designs.) Then what 
>is the antonym of "illustrations and graphic designs"?

Do we need an antonym for that?

>Do you know the famous controversy between Brahams
>and Wagner of the 19th century? My understanding is 
>that Wagner to be "composite art," while Brahms to 
>be "pure art," is this wright or should I use another 
>word for "pure art"?

Do you think Brahms' music was untouched by other
forms of art?

>Yes of course any forms of art are contaminated by 
>other art form.  But there is the will of the creator,
>which want to be less or more contaminated.

The will of the creator may be strong but there is
also the subconsciousness working against it. Also, 
you are swamped with external input all the time. 
There is no way that can be cleansed. Even the decision 
to create "pure art" is already a contamination, as are 
the tools used for that.


Nemo Nox
http://www.nemonox.com