Sculpture and architecture belong to fine art category. Boris Shoshensky -- "GEOFF CREALOCK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael: I had no intention of (sneakily) taking a position or defining a quality of "W's of A". I was simply asking a question. I'm certainly getting answers (which I appreciate). Your separation of the "formal" and "anthropological" (could we say business/economic?) nature of art works is heuristic.
I'm aware of "sensitivities" of writers to editors' proposals to revise works. I was less familiar with pressures on fine artists to revise paintings and am suprised to learn that patrons would wish to revise sculpture. I mean to come to the issue from an artist's perspective, which may be: "this is my work, like it or leave me alone, but keep your suggestions to yourself". Or, something different. My framework for viewing art: I fear I'm much less sophisticated that you may assume. There are language arts (novels, poems, plays), there is fine art (paintings, drawings, etc.), plastic arts (sculpture), performance art (ballet, modern dance etc.) and architecture. But, of course, you knew all that. I know of no other frame that I'm using. I wonder how each form is similar and how different. Geoff C >From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Is art sacred? >Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:19:20 -0400 > >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] ____________________________________________________________ Click here to find the satellite television package that meets your needs. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4tvKJs1l9p1yDInL9fWGQrZo HY6LItwPbirlWospxkc6p2mA/
