Re: 'Derek believes he espies absolute metaphysical caegories: "This work IS art, that other work IS NOT art." I believe such categories are mythical."
I have denied this a million times... DA On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:24 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 5/16/08 10:55:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> Derek applies the term "art" to designate works he deems to reach an >> certain degree of exalted achievement; here,you seem to use "beauty" >> to signify the degree of felicity or pleasantness in the model. But of >> course, I may be looking at the right notions department, eh? >> > The essential difference between Derek and me is that I know all I'm talking > about is my own predilection to use words in an attempt to convey my personal > reaction to a stimulus. Derek believes he espies absolute metaphysical > caegories: "This work IS art, that other work IS NOT art." I believe such > categories > are mythical. > > From my ignorant non-artist's (visual artist's) point of view, I too might > call Freud and Pearlstein's "paint handling and brushwork, not to mention the > actual anatomical fidelity" "marvelous". But the word 'beautiful' would not > come to mind if I were trying to verbalize my reaction. > > > > > > > ************** > Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
