If it's ironic, you can. WC
--- On Thu, 1/29/09, David Shelby <[email protected]> wrote: > From: David Shelby <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: History of 'Sentimentality' > To: "aesthetics list" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 11:06 PM > On this subject, one of my earliest art instructors > repeatedly cautioned us against sentimentality and as an > excercise he brought into drawing class several embalmed and > flayed cats from the biology department for us to draw. He > said that there was no way we could be sentimental about > that subject matter. > Sentimentality seems to have to with content and I > don't know why you can't make a good work of art > about sentimental subject matter. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 29, 2009, at 2:14 PM, William Conger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, sentiment is different from sentimentality, as > modern is from modernistic. And sentimentality is a very > complicated idea with many facets. One is the replacement > of reality with myth. Much of art history relies on myth > and its corruption as sentimentality. One sentimental idea > in modern art rests on the myth of artistic and individual > freedom. But in fact the reality is that most art is in > bondage to some prevailing concepts and their implementation > in the art discourse and markets. > > > > here's a related analogy: > > > > At one time in America, before 1865, a huge percentage > of Americans were in fact in bondage. That's not only > the slaves but also the native Indians who were being pushed > into separate reserves. And this doesn't even touch on > the bondage created by group prejudice against those whose > ideas, political and religious, marked them as misfits, > disloyal, dangerous, etc. Yet most of our notions of > freedom and indiviualism were honed during that period and > remain glowing today. So it is with art as well. > That's why we need to continually confront and attack > the myths that are erected against reality. For me, > sentimentality in its various iterations is the signal of > misleading myth. > > > > Sentimentality is the pair of rose colored glasses. > Once you put them on, everything is sentimentalized and myth > becomes the new reality. > > > > WC > > > > > > --- On Thu, 1/29/09, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: History of 'Sentimentality' > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 1:28 PM > >> In a message dated 1/29/09 12:14:01 PM, > >> [email protected] writes: > >> > >> > >>> (and we might notice that neither Aristotle > nor > >> Shakespeare offer any > >>> social > >>> or institutional or educational qualifications > for > >> their preferred > >> audience > >>> of aesthetes) > >>> > >> > >> it is probable that neither Donald Trump nor Maya > Angelou > >> would be among > >> their preferred audience. > >> Kate Sullivan > >> > >> > >> ************** > >> From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in > >> between, stay up-to-date with the latest news. > >> (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000023)
