'satisfyingly disturbed' is like saying something is satisfyingly ugly
or un-satisfyingly pleasing. I'm sure there is a place in Aesthetics
for that.
I'm not too sure about the identity of strong or weak art. Doesn't it
all
come down to personal choice?
mando
On Jun 7, 2008, at 5:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is not it necessary to be satisfyingly disturbed (as moved )
emotionally,
which is an understanding of art? And that emotional response is
more positive
the stronger art is and the more we are formed as humans by being
exposed to
art as much as practically possible + genetics. Is not
understanding in art is
mostly emotional maturity in the field?
Boris Shoshensky
-- armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's not necessary to understand or even to love some one's art.
But It's necessary to not be disturbed by it. Yet to be disturb by
it may be due to lack of enough exposure to it.
Exposure to anything usually creates understanding and possibly
love
mando
On Jun 6, 2008, at 1:15 AM, aesthete aesthete wrote:
- Everyone discusses my art and pretends to understand, as if it were
necessary to understand, when it is simply necessary to love.
Monet
_________________________________________________________________
Search that pays you back! Introducing Live Search cashback.
http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/
crea=srchpaysyou
back
____________________________________________________________
Enter for Your Chance to WIN*
The TotalBeauty.com Summer Spa Sweepstakes!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/
JKFkuJkEP31goBXvhZCyG1YILf2lTq
hdsbsCZnWMO5evEfIrL3q6xe/
