On Oct 6, 2008, at 10:53 PM, GEOFF CREALOCK wrote:
Michael: OK. I concede your point. Does this apply in ballet? If the execution of all dancers is important, on what basis is a dscrimination made to promote one from the corps de ballet to be a principal dancer?
This argument is like Achilles and the tortoise: If they're all important, how can one of the dancers be the prima ballerina? (How can Achilles catch the tortoise if that damned reptile keeps lumbering ahead?) I've mentioned on previous occasions the universal fact of disequilibrium, the omnipresence of imbalance and disparity and the universal impetus to parity and balance, something that is never achieved and maintained. So too in any endeavor: all parts of a painting are equally important--insofar as they are part of the surface--and all members of the corps are equally important--insofar as they are part of the ensemble on stage--but in neither case can all the parts be in total parity and balance. Disequilibrium is the essential fact. Some dancers are better at dancing, and some parts are more crucial to the complete expression of the dance. Mona's face is "more important" than the framing pillars or distant bridge, but, to paraphrase our friend Milton, they too serve who only stand and wait in the sfumato.
I wrote:
Asserting that all marks are equivalent doesn't mean that all marks convey the same descriptive or pictorial effect.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
