What is the point of making these summative pronouncements, as if you are quoting Biblical texts? They are worthless unless backed up by explanation, analysis, reasoning, demonstration. I mean what sort of insight or knowledge is revealed by the statement, "There are endless ways to preserve the essence of things with symbols..."? Let's take a look: Endless? Ways? Preserve? Essence? Things? Symbols?
Each of those words begs for explanation in context. If there are endless ways to do something then any way at all is correct, since endless, a synonym for infinite, stands for all that is or can be. And ways are means and if the means are endless then so are the ways, which renders the term absurd, since any way at all will serve as a means. To preserve something is to set it apart for that which is not preserved. How can some things be preserved and others not if the class of things being preserved is everything, introduced by "endless" and "ways"? Essence is either contained by object-hood or surrounds object-hood. Like "thing" it it is a term that must be defined in metaphoric form since it can't be limited to demonstrable elements. I'll ignore the word things (objects) since it is clearly a word that defies description limiting it to either material or non-material objects and that makes it ambiguous in the absence of limiting terms. Symbols is, of course, the biggie word here. It encapsulates all the other words because we have no choice except to use symbols to express anything at all. It is the redundant word since it is the silent prefix to all other words in the sentence you wrote. Thus: There are symbolically endless symbolic ways to symbolically preserve the symbolic essences of symbolic things as symbols. If you fellows want to trade pompous little aphorisms back and forth it's OK with me, but don't presume that they have any value at all in aesthetic inquiry. WC ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 10:17:20 PM Subject: Re: Only an academic figure drawing can be wrong There are endless ways to preserve the essence of things with symbols that may not even resemble the original thing it represents and expresses. yet the essence remains. mando On Sep 25, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Boris Shoshensky wrote: > Anything extreme is not working. Distortion or rules. > Boris Shoshensky > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Only an academic figure drawing can be wrong > Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:18:25 -0700 > > One may also say, that extreame distortion is not as important as > good design. > mando > >> >> On Sep 23, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Boris Shoshensky wrote: >> > Distortion based on skill is a good way to go. > > > > > > > > >>> For me 'wrong' is when the function of a creative harmony is absent. >>> Creative distortion is not wrong. 'David' is anatomically incorrect. >>> But give me that distortion all the time. The problem part of >>> academic drawing >>> is lack of expression, the good part is technical skill. >>> Distortion based on >>> skill is a good way to go. >>> Why is this an interesting issue? For you as an artist it is not. >>> As a >>> teacher it is important, I think. >>> Boris Shoshensky >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Only an academic figure drawing can be wrong >>> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:18:03 -0700 (PDT) >>> >>> What is any discipline of life drawing? There's something wrong >>> about the >>> noses in Greek Classical Art, so how is that the Greek Profile >>> became so >>> commonplace in academic art? Incidentally, there's something >>> wrong about >>> almost all of Classical Greek art with respect to anatomic >>> accuracy. The Greek >>> artists relied on tradition, purpose, and external observation >>> and not on the >>> internal facts of anatomy or strict objectivity. They made highly >>> distorted >>> figures for both practical and expressive purposes. >>> >>> The reason people can tell if the nose is wrong, but probably not >>> be able to >>> tell if the arm or toes are wrong has to do with the relatively >>> large area of >>> the human brain devoted to face recognition. >>> >>> If you say, "Depict the human body according to these >>> rules" (whatever rules >>> you list), then when the result does not conform to those rules, >>> the result >>> is wrong. Academic life drawing instruction often followed such >>> rules -- both >>> pertaining to measurement and style and to media techniques. Why >>> is this an >>> interesting issue? >>> wc >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:56:42 AM >>> Subject: Re: Only an academic figure drawing can be wrong >>> >>> In a message dated 9/21/09 10:32:14 AM, [email protected] >>> writes: >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I thought you said you were emulating Pontormo and Bronzino both >>> of whom >>> had some very beautiful criteria. >>> KAte Sullivan >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! >>> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/ >>> BLSrjpYSwrByyarmi3yODW8xrBME1e >>> TBOY0O4E3F9GLYj9NY99C1DK2Xe1K/
