About 5 years ago during the height of the controversy over creationism and evolution I made a piece of sculpture for an auction benefit. Whenever I do things for benefit auctions I try to experiment with something different from my usual work instead of giving away work that might affect my prices. And it's fun. So I took a model of the human skull and cut it in half. Then I altered one half to look very simian and the other half to look very "classic Greek". The I placed the two halves facing each other on a panel and titled the work Creationist Anatomy. The ironic point is that creationists think the crisp white Greek model is the way the Creator made them as distinct from the simian, brutish, dark colored, animal. Both of my exaggerated models are grossly incorrect. Creationism is fanciful idealism and so is "classic" art and so is the false separation between us and our simian cousins. WC
--- On Thu, 2/12/09, David Shelby <[email protected]> wrote: > From: David Shelby <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Definable and measurable truths > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 2:39 AM > The discovery channel and pbs have run specials about > "The Science of Physical Attraction" or some such > title and if you have cable maybe you can catch it. I saw > that they reran it a few days ago on Discovery. They say > among other things that humans are attracted to certain > proportions in human figures which happen to be the same as > those of classical greek figures. Sociologists have > traveled the globe testing this idea out on people of all > cultures and they consider the evidence to be overwhelming. > This is where I first became aware that there are certain > hardwired preferences in certain formal relationships in > human beings. > Concerning taste, have you read Hume's "A Standard > of Taste"? > > On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Chris Miller wrote: > > > 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/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of DSC00187.JPG]
