[log in to unmask][log in to unmask]
9580 31 21_Re: Definition of art10_Nancy [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 01:59:04 -0400704_- Why "ought" art to terrify and shock? What moral imperative?
Date sent: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:23:52 EDT
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Definition of art
In a message dated 01-08-20 16:45:02 EDT, you write:
<< You've raised a very interesting question, here, Michael. I can't
the images from Vietnam you mention as art, because I know they are not
harmless, reflective disquisitions on the nature of human suffering, they
are authentic pictures of real people dying. I find that shocking,
iconic, but not in the least artistic. However, if I saw an [...]41_21Aug200101:59:[log in to unmask]
9612 20 21_Re: Definition of art11_Marcia [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 08:15:53 -0400472_- Dear Michael,
I've lost something in the exchange and no longer have your original message.
Can you set me straight? Did you say that the photographs from the war (the
little girl running, the general about to be shot) were art, or that the acts --
of dropping the napalm, of shooting the general in the head -- were expressions
that affected others and so were art. I'd thought you said the second, Jon has
responded (Hey, Jon) to the first. [...]35_21Aug200108:15:[log in to unmask]
9633 219 21_Re: Definition of Art14_Richard [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 09:26:30 -0600712_- This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
I think that much of the confusion on this thread stems from trying to =
produce a definition while at the same time trying to produce a =
Art is a representation. It imitates reality. Art is not naturally =
occurring. It requires an artist. A sunset over the Manzano mountains =
might take my breath away but it isn't art until some one paints, writes =
or takes a picture of it. The artist provides a rendering of the =
artist's [...]36_21Aug200109:26:[log in to unmask]
9853 10 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 15:57:21 EDT258_- "ART" the big stuff, is not normal. It is beyond the realm of comprehension.
It should and must take the one who experiences it to a new realm of
That is what I mean by terrify (same root as terrific) and shock.
Michael37_21Aug200115:57:[log in to unmask]
9864 10 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 16:01:02 EDT314_- The acts only became art because they had influence upon someone (i.e. they
were made into little pictures and flown onto our dinner tables). The people
murdering/being murdered are not in the "being affected" part of the
equation. Only observers -- art has to be observed to exist.
Michael37_21Aug200116:01:[log in to unmask]
9875 19 21_Re: Definition of art11_Marcia [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 16:26:15 -0400377_- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> The acts only became art because they had influence upon someone (i.e. they
> were made into little pictures and flown onto our dinner tables). The people
> murdering/being murdered are nõÊVn