From: Tony Martin (dodecatone@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 09:21:35 MDT
Hello,
I'm sort of new to the list or rather I have lurked on and off for a while,
but only contributed once. Although I do not have a background in science or
computing I am fascinated by both and feel it important to try to
understand something of them and their impact on the world. That's how I
stumbled across extropy in the first place.
Olga Bourlin wrote:
> In my remarks below, for the sake of simplification - I am not including
> carvings, photography, moviemaking, documentaries (and all others forms of
> art ...).
Is it just painting you're talking about, then? Later you talk about Da
Vinci, Picasso and Warhol so it seems the claims you're making extend beyond
painting . Maybe it's just my paranoia ( I have a background in the visual
arts), but there seems to be a few anti-visual art memes articulating your
thoughts here. For what it's worth, let me make a few claims and
observations on behalf of the visual arts as well as some more general
points:
Biology, and a whole stack of other sciences for that matter, would be
much more difficult to study, and arguably years behind, if there weren't
illustrations. I can't imagine how anybody could get a handle on the
structure and functions of a particular organ without diagrams, photos and
drawings. This is a point that Da Vinci made, too.
In maths, graphs and diagrams present data in a way which make it much more
comprehensible.
>But when you come down to
> it, what has fingerpainting ever done for humanity?
You'd better ask my children and who knows how many millions more about that
one. I also seem to remember reading about some research somewhere that
exposure to the visual arts had some beneficial effect on mathematical
abilities of children (can't reference that; anybody else know about it?)
Given how much time children want to draw and paint, I would have thought it
played a crucial role in their development.
> In a variation on the
> pen/sword mightiness question, my vote weighs in heavily on the pen ...
> rather than the paintbrush.
I am not going to argue against the importance of the development of written
language, that would be ridiculous. But information certain types of
information can be conveyed much faster and accurately if visualised; if you
had an accurate written description of a face and an
accurate picture, I'd put money on being able to pick the right person from
a line-up with the picture much more quickly. But it's not a case of
'either/or'; they are both powerful tools which give us insights into how
the world is.
> 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).
I'm not sure he really contributed to our understanding of human anatomy at
all, though I'm prepared to be corrected on that one. If if he did actually
produce the book he intended on anatomy, then I have no doubt he would have.
That he was a rare talent is indisputable.
>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
It is not generally well known outside the art world, but Picasso was
actually an extremely good draughtsman and painter in the conventional
sense. Scam artist? Well, by then in the particular branch of the artworld
in which he operated, scammery was becoming one of the dominant currencies.
Scammery = celebrity here.
>
> At least Andy Warhol was more honest. He made fun of art and its supposed
> "importance," ........>
Maybe, but Marcel Duchamp, arguably the most influential artist in that part
of the visual arts in the 20c, got there before him and laid the ground
work.
> 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.
You've broadened things out here which seems to negate your list of arts at
the beginning which you exclude from your comments. Well, IMHO, it is not
just a way of "expressing one's creativity" which sounds like a euphemism
for onanistic behaviour to me. Art, by which I mean the visual arts broadly
and definitely not just the stuff that's found in galleries, is one very
powerful way of getting a grip on what's really happening out there in the
real world. In fact, it is indispensible and often not very relaxing or
therapeutic.
BTW, this is not a defence of the work which inspired this thread. I agree
with Damien's assessment on that one. They must have be done by the same
person who does the pamphlets for Jehovah's Witnesses.
T o n y M a r t i n dodecatone@yahoo.co.uk
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . .
..
.. . . . . . .
. ..
.. . . . . . .
. ..
.. . . . . . .
. ..
.. . . . . . . .
..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . . ..
.. . . . . . . .
..
.. . . . . . .
. ..
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:16 MST