[-empyre-] Re: pure art?

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

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.

>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?

>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?


----------------------------------------------
Nemo Nox             http://www.burburinho.com
pensamentos despenteados para dias de vendaval
----------------------------------------------