Print

Print


The statement:
> >Even without defining "state of mind" the statement that art comes from
it
> >seems to be a truism.
was Diana's, not mine.
Peter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Armstrong" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:36 PM
Subject: Bio-graph vs. Art-o-graph


> At 10:58 AM 8/31/2006, you wrote:
>
> >Peter wrote: "Does a piece of art ALWAYS come from a state of mind?"
> >
> >Even without defining "state of mind" the statement that art comes from
it
> >seems to be a truism.
>
>    Actually, I think that is quite disputable. My only point was that the
> artist, when creating his or her art, is in SOME state of mind. OK, I was
> drifting ahead and didn't say that. So I'll clarify here. To use Eliot's
> terms that CR posted, we have the man who suffers ("state of mind" in the
> current thread) and the mind that creates (what to call it.....maybe "that
> impersonal capacity without which  poetry can not come to be worth [more
> than] the paper it is written on"). This, I suggest, may be more useful
> than it might first appear, especially in conjunction with Peter's
> observation, which I haplessly observe should be obvious but apparently
> isn't, that the difficulty with biographic bits is seeing how they behave
> in the poem, not how they behaved in the life, and understanding that they
> are doing something different in the  poem than in the life. As I said, to
> some this seems obvious, and to others, judging by the outbursts, not.
>
>   So, understandable, to a point?
>
>   I think there may be a way to answer Dunja's good questions, but I must
> to the road now .
>
>
>
> Ken A.
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/432 - Release Date: 8/29/2006
>
>