I agree with Saul on this point. What Saul says about art as an act of faith is close to or the same as Kandinsky's notion of Internal Necessity, a spiritual manifestation of the ineffable self. This manifestation can't happen without belief, or faith in it. This is the underlying conceptual position in modernism, before the era of pomo excess irony that gutted such individualism and replaced it with cultural icons.
Or, perhaps I misapply Saul's remarks. WC --- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:55 AM, Saul Ostrow wrote: > > > Nope - the idea that art exists is an an act of > faith and that someone > > called an artist may actually manifest that which > maybe identified > > as art is > > no different than the faith that a priest can > channel god > > > I don't grasp this. Can you exapnd? > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
