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

["G.H. Hovagimyan" <ghh@thing.net>]

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
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre