Mando wrote: >Making models after models for models sake, to me is a waste of time if one does not try to use it to create something other than another model, a 'design 'with meaning. You forced me to be honest in return
I realize that I'm getting the short end of the stick, here -- ouch ! -- but actually I'm quite pleased that Mando seems to be moving away from his habitual-relentless-tiresome mantra of "each to his own" -- and is finally trying to define some universal values -- using words like "meaning", "soul", "design", "creatively new" -- and suggesting that one may be "wasting his time". Can he take this discussion any further ? Is he concerned with "the preconceptions you bring to what you will be doing" as Saul has suggested ? Does he think that some preconceptions are better than others? Will he eventually refer to examples that exemplify those words? Isn't that how a canon gets assembled ? - which, even if fictional, as William asserts, is nonetheless necessary when discussing quality in any of the arts. I like the distinction between copy and design -- even if they are ultimately inseparable. Here's what I would consider an example of copy trumping design - (though quite reasonably so, since it's involved in something of an athletic rather than aesthetic competition): http://www.melindawhitmore.com/Melinda_Whitmore/Blog/Entries/2008/6/20_Nation al_Sculpture_Competition_%E2%80%93_Day_5.html I am no friend of "copy". Since new generation sculptors are unfamiliar with great canonical sculpture, all they can do is copy - but I also see nothing wrong with "Making models after models for models sake" - as long as the results look good. ____________________________________________________________ Click to make millions by owning your own franchise. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmRaeLOSb3RZzYt2NpofhJMv tNnNgQCFl5Nyle6QzaA2hbwA/
