David, I am suggesting that common 'truths' need to be examined.
We live in an age that priveleges the scientific/ technical way over the
aesthetic - so it wants to find "the nuts and bolts" of everything -- in this
case, presenting "the formal aspects of art" or the "psychology of vision" or
"visual literacy". But when these ideas are examined -- poof ! --- they
vanish.
The only "definable and measurable" truths about art are surveys of taste:
what kinds of people prefer what kinds of things.
***************
*********************************************
>I entered this discussion because you had questions about the phrases "visual
literacy" and "formalist credentials" and I just tried to inform you about
what those phrases commonly refer to. I've even heard terms like those used in
a pejorative sense as in that case of my instructor who was told that he had
mastered all these formal
techniques and couldn't seem to say anything with them. These are aspects of
the psychology of vision that we use to see form, space and color that
virtually all humans share. This is why I call them truths. Do you have to
employ them all in artworks to make a good work of art? No. I like Frank
Stella's minimalist paintings and there is no
perspective. He's still called a formalist. The formal aspects of visual art
are just the nuts and bolts of all artworks. They don't always add up to a
great work of art.
____________________________________________________________
Need cash? Click here to get a payday loan.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1k6AZV19gXMDD0FHk6Alrp81
VzSi9LfWnKl9amBIuwoi6ri/
