From: Replicant00@aol.com
Date: Wed Apr 12 2000 - 08:36:23 MDT
Guy from Italy:
> >In art there's not a common language, world, meaning, aim,
> >object, etc.
> >Am I wrong?
Natasha from Extropic Art:
> Yes. The arts acts as an umbrella for many modes of art and each of these
> has many different subsets. Within the modes and the subsets there must be
> a common language or the artists would not be able to communicate. (snip)
they work together and
> share a common vocabulary.
>
Aha!
So this vocabulary is a *learned* vocabulary. Learned when one works in that
mode or carefully examines art's inner working, I see.
I would posit that many are not aware of said vocabulary, nor take the time
to research it. If I had never read anything on science and did not know that
vocabulary I might be prone to assert that it's vocabulary did not exist?
Kind of like how religions viewed science at first...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:58 MST