Not my words that Saul quotes below, they're Michael's, and I wrote my rebuttal. wc
--- On Wed, 7/8/09, Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Worringer: Abstraction and Empathy > To: "aesthetics list" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 7:51 AM > Might I inquire that when it comes to > art - what you believe its usage and > utility are so that I may view your prism of > "truthfulness" the requirements > that a thing must satisfy to fulfill its role as art > in accord with its > usefulness and utility > > > On 7/7/09 11:38 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > In my reply, I mentioned the Breck Girl. I want to clarify > how I perceive > advertising or commercial art. First, the images are > embedded in several > "frames" of usage and utility. The artist at all times has > a free hand to make > the image in any way, but the sponsor insists that, mostly > related to its > persuasive power and to some extent related to the art > director's perception > of style and "ambience" or such. This is not much different > in kind from the > working relationship between patron and artist, between > Pope Julius and > Michelangelo or the burghers of Calais and Rodin, etc. > > Getting back to my notions of the truth conditions of art > (described in > another email message), when an advertisement is viewed as > meeting its > utilitarian purpose, then the illustration-picture is > When the utility of the > picture is not an issue, then the illustration can be > viewed through the prism > of "nontruthfulness," i.e., as ar > > --
