From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon May 20 2002 - 05:17:47 MDT
On Monday, May 20, 2002 5:04 AM Olga Bourlin fauxever@sprynet.com wrote:
>> Portraying the heroic or more broadly the best in humanity in
>> art would generally be a wonderful thing. We don't get enough
>> of that.
>
> In my remarks below, for the sake of simplification - I am not
including
> carvings, photography, moviemaking, documentaries (and all others
forms of
> art ...).
Why restrict yourself thus? I'm sure if Samatha was restricting herself
to painting. I would also say the major art form of our time is film
and its variants.
> Within our species, I suspect the majority of heroic incidents happen
subtly
> and quietly, rather than the
> all-out-conking-you-on-the-head-Baby-Jane-makeup variety ... (i.e.,
one
> needn't shout or exaggerate for the effect, expecially when one is
drawing a
> picture for posterity).
For example? (I don't disagree here, but I want to get a better grip on
what you mean by "heroic incident" here.)
> I'm not certain we don't already have enough art portraying the best
of
> humanity, however. I'm not certain we don't have enough art period.
I'm not sure about this. First, each generation or person needs to
reinvent such things anew. A lot of this depends on context too. To
use an example from poetry, Ancient Greeks responded differently, I bet,
to Homer's _Odyssey_ than Moderns.
> Don't
> get me wrong - I love art (the walls of my condo are not walls -
they're my
> art projects in various stages of completion). But when you come down
to
> it, what has fingerpainting ever done for humanity?
Fingerpainting?:) Don't you think you're being a bit too hyperbolic
here?
> In a variation on the
> pen/sword mightiness question, my vote weighs in heavily on the pen
...
> rather than the paintbrush.
An interesting mix: the pen vs. the sword vs. the paintbrush. I'm not
sue if I disagree, though for generations of illiterate people, the
paintbrush was the pen.
> There are exceptions. Without a doubt, Leonardo da Vinci was a rare
talent
> (and unwittingly, through his art, overthrew or inspired a host of
societal
> innovations, such as paving the way for Western Europeans, at least,
to be
> able to study of the human body). In da Vinci's case, his art
deserved to
> be called capital-A "Art." But Picasso? What a pipsqueak! Guernica
> notwithstanding (it is fine, if you like cartoons), Picasso was a slob
of a
> man, and his art reflected all that he was "inside" ... i.e., he was
one of
> the world's greatest scam artists!
I think you're cardstacking here. It's sort of like saying Mozart vs.
Eminem. Yeah, Mozart wins, hands down, but music isn't just these two
guys and their imitators. What of Brahms? Mahler? Shostakovich? In
painting, what about Rembrandt, van Gogh, etc.?
> IMHO, art is a wonderful way of expressing one's creativity. It's
fun.
> It's great and relaxing therapy - great for unwinding. But mostly
it's a
> playtime activity - no more and no less.
I don't agree. I think the fact that art is found in all cultures seems
to go against it as merely a playtime activity. Also, that people
generally prefer the art of a few over their own tends to go against
this view.
Thanks for your input!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:13 MST