At least Ruskin had the wisdom to know when he was doomed as an artist. One cannot equal anything by adding nothing and leaving nothing out. He was perhaps thinking of Alberti who said that "beauty is attained when nothing can be altered except for the worse". That would imply adding nothing, subtracting nothing, not to nature as such, but to the artwork, which is always a subversion of nature.
WC --- On Fri, 11/14/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Scientific View > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 4:04 PM > On Nov 14, 2008, at 9:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/14/08 11:29:29 AM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > writes: > > > > > >> I believe there are two questions continually in > paradoxical > >> tension: What > >> is the art of nature? What is the nature of art? > >> > > John Ruskin was an astonishingly adroit draftsman of > nature pics. > > Early on, > > he advocated adding nothing and leaving nothing out. > He even > > criticized > > Michelangelo for breaking this rule. Later, however, > he conceded > > that his > > inability > > to add or leave out would forever keep him from > creating anything > > visual that > > was ultimately worthy. > > > > > > > > ************** > > Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie > news & > > > more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/ > > > aol?redir > > =htt > > > p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
