On Oct 17, 2008, at 9:16 AM, GEOFF CREALOCK wrote:
more vulnerable to coercive intervention
Geoff,
I find this terminology to be odd and loaded. It suggests that you
consider a WoA--without regard for its form--to be a singularly
unitary creation of one person, and that any departure from that basis
changes, or even diminishes, the work. You asked in an earlier post,
"Is it instructive that paintings and sculpture are not to be tampered
with, whereas plays are 'workshopped' and re-written and architectural
plans revised?"
Why do you frame things this way? What is the frame or structure you
use to perceive and evaluate a WoA [without, for the time being,
getting into a quarrel about what the a-word means]?
I see two different contexts in play here: the specific formal nature
of any given work--pictorial or visual, literary or dramatic, etc.--
and the "anthropology" of its making--how the artist works, how the
work develops from other works and external influences, how the acts
of critics and commentators affect the making of a work or its
showing, etc.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
