I was thinking of the term more in keeping with the Reaissance use of it. Generally, at that time it was used to denote the whole -- sacred to them-- sense of beauty of form, the whole integrated form of the human being, as a reflection of supernatural beauty. The term "noble contour" was similarly intended but it centered on the use of line, often a very evenly "moving" contour in a human profile and on throughout the body. Raphael was considered a master of it as was Leonardo.
Today Disegno refers, I think, if it comes up at all, to the overall integrated harmony of an artwork; yes, the artwork's expressive design but much more than the arrangement of shapes. It evokes some expressive quality and, in reference to recent discussion here, would apply directly to the relationship of figure to ground to expression to meaning. It is content sublimated as form. I think you would agree. WC --- On Tue, 10/7/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:32 PM > Is the word "Disegno" the same as Diseqo or more > like Designio. > Or it plain Design? > > On Oct 7, 2008, at 8:36 AM, William Conger wrote: > > > I stand by all of my comments regarding this worn out > thread. > > Miller is wrong because he bases all of his arguments > on reception, > > that is, the viewer, any viewer, and particularly the > less informed > > and sensitive viewers. Would he advocate the man in > the street as > > the deciding expert on a musical composition, a > symphony by a major > > composer? > > > > Ordinary viewers get what they look for. Art is not > made for > > ordinary lookers but for some elusive standard of > excellence, based > > on the excellences already evident to the most expert > judges. > > That's how it works. Art quality is not a mob > rule sort of > > degraded pop contest, despite the now pervasive notion > that all > > passive audiences can evaluate anything. > > > > As for the decorative, non-decorative issue, it's > mainly moot. The > > word decorative has become a pejorative word, robbing > it of the > > values it evokes, which are every bit as expressive as > any > > illustrative narrative work. Since Hans Hofmann is > still being > > mentioned here (by me, I suppose) one should read his > own remarks > > about decoration. In fact, when the more civilized > past was less > > drunk with vulgar culture, the word was quite > honorific. However, > > it should be said that the decorative is also > metaphoric in the > > sense that a configuration of form (the whole design) > can easily, > > and always does, in fact, bring to mind multiple > associations and > > imagery that we regard as explicit, or > representational. That's > > why any shape at all will always "look like > something else". The > > expression of any visual artwork depends on its > decorative > > elements, synonymous with Form, Design, > "Disegno" Composition. > > WC > > > > These topics are interesting but they deserve more > nuanced > > investigation that the list is willing to consider. > > > > > > --- On Tue, 10/7/08, Chris Miller > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: Chris Miller > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on > Canvas > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 10:03 AM > >> It looks like William's dogmatic formalism has > gotten > >> him into a hole, and > >> even the loyal Brady has only helped him dig it a > little > >> deeper. > >> > >> Once again, it's time to apply the Miller test > for > >> aesthetic discrimination. > >> > >> Change the nose of the Mona Lisa by only a > millimeter or > >> two -- and every > >> healthy human over the age of 10 will be able to > >> distinguish (and deplore) the > >> difference. > >> > >> But change those lines in the background by a > similar > >> distance, and I'm > >> doubting that even the visual artists on this list > would be > >> able to notice. > >> While entire lines could be removed or added in a > Jackson > >> Pollack painting, > >> and no one in the world would be the wiser. > >> > >> > >> Unfortunately, William refuses to recognize that > his > >> aesthetic ideology is > >> appropriate to his own school painting (for which > he should > >> be proud) but > >> doesn't apply outside modern formalism or > historically, > >> what is usually called > >> the decorative arts. > >> > >> Impressionable guy that I am -- the more I chat > with > >> William -- and look at > >> his work and the other geo-form painters, the > more > >> interested I am -- just > >> as my interest has grown in other non-figurative > genres > >> like calligraphy and > >> painted ceramics. > >> > >> But once the thrill of new-ness is gone from > modern > >> abstract painting (and I > >> think it left about 40-50 years ago) -- how can it > still > >> maintain it's appeal > >> -- or more importantly -- how can it still > maintain that > >> high cultural value > >> that elevates it above the merely decorative arts > - and > >> allows the > >> practitioner to call himself an artist rather than > a mere > >> artisan. > >> > >> This is a real challenge for those who care about > this > >> genre. > >> > >> Trying to apply, as William does, its > doctrines/ideologies > >> to the rest of art > >> history, is not going to get very far any more. > >> > >> The better strategy, I think, is to remove the > notion of > >> "merely" from the > >> words "decorative" and > "artisan" -- as > >> Asian cultures have done -- as they > >> allow a few brush marks on a tea cup to have equal > or > >> greater value to pieces > >> that represent men or gods.
