"An abstract painting or cartoonish stick-figure may be boring -- but only an academic figure drawing can be wrong."
By "academic", I'm not referring to a specific academy or canon, but to any discipline of life drawing. So a drawing is not "wrong" because it violates any specific academic criteria, and I wasn't limiting such judgment to those who are even familiar with much artwork or the concept of "art" at all. "There's something wrong about the nose" is a comment that might come from anybody able to see and speak. While "something right" might be found in the wide variety of representational styles spanning four thousand years. So Saul's comments about the degree of canonization or standardization would not apply. Over the first decade of this listserv, I can't recall that right/wrong has ever been an issue regarding specific visual art unless some discipline of representation has evidently been applied. So, my assertion is resting upon very little evidence. But it could be tested, couldn't it? By presenting a variety of images to a variety of viewers and asking those viewers to rate the images as interesting/boring, funny/not funny, right/wrong etc. >Actually - the reason they can speak of right and wrong is because this form of figuration is so cannonized is that it can only be judged in terms of its academic criteria - in other word the degree of right and wrongness increases with a thing's standardization - there is nothing to like - in that one either likes this type of drawing or not As for this statement - lot's of things whose criteria are standardized - rather than creative can be wrong - look at how much you get wrong, on a regular basis because you can neither grasp abstract thought or the propositional nature of art ____________________________________________________________ Compete with the big boys. Click here to find products to benefit your business. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUki84t4XTCsqnHi9A5pKKRu AVE0YDrU0vDrGNzUmscJMy5IMRGSU/
