There are no unique skills necessary to any art. Because there is no art but only a practice imagined as being art or producing art, and because the activity and product aim to embody what has not yet been termed art, unknown skills need to be found and employed. This may mean in a particular instance, that painting as a skill is irrelevant, and the skill needed is one that results from deskilling traditional painting. An example would be Pollock's "deskilling" of traditional painting skills and his employing the new skill of pouring and dripping paint. Prior to Pollock, dripping and pouring paint were not regarded as painting skills. Now they are common, available to any artist. No one can paint without being aware that the use of a brush to apply paint is deskilled. In fact, today, all art processes and skills, and practices are deskilled (having been rejected without ending art) and thus one can question whether or not they can embody any meaning except through irony. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 12:13:10 PM Subject: Re: Physician, heal thyself I tend to agree with your summation. mando On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:47 AM, [email protected] wrote: > It's not obvious to me why "knowing" a number of "arts" would hurt a > creator (except, perhaps, by spreading his time too thin). I can't cite > anything > I've learned about other genres that I'm aware has hurt my progress in my > genre. > > But has it helped? At this point I need, in passing, to assert that alleged > genres do not have mind-independent hard perimeters -- "This is the > painter's turf, this is the dancer's turf..." For example, would you call > acting > an "art"? And would you call playwrighting another "art"? But there's reason > to believe that having been an actor helps a playwright at work. > > Would you call sculpture a different "art" from painting? From my distance, > it would seem that some of the skills acquire in one of those pursuits > might then be helpful in the other pursuit. (Just to reconcile this posting > with > some things I've said in the past, I point out that I avoid asking "IS > sculpture a different 'art' from painting?" Or, "IS poetry a different art > from > playwriting?" Philosophers constantly astound me with the basically stupid > questions they tend to ask themselves.) > > Broadly speaking, I have doubts that painters and playwrights could acquire > SKILLS from each other's pursuit, but I think they pick up attitudinal > stuff, perhaps a readiness to be more experimental, or a comfort in observing > that one is not alone with certain experiences -- e.g. the other day Kate told > how she had to change a certain portion of a work because, good in itself > though it was, it in effect distracted from the intended whole-work effect. > To playwrights, novelists and even poets, this is a very recognizable moment. > > > In sum, first thought whispers that someone who "knows" all the "arts" is > marginally more likely to be better at his work than the creator confined to > one. But the evidence of history gives little support to this idea. Most of > the multi-"art" guys tend to be at least a notch below the greatest > creators. And many great creators have seemed to confine all their effort > and > attention to one "art". > > > In a message dated 3/10/10 2:36:48 PM, [email protected] writes: > > >> Actually, with your clarification, i'm comparing the lifetime a,e, >> skills of one >> individual with the normal related knowledge of one of the arts, to >> the a,e, >> lifetime skills of another individual with the normal related >> knowledge in all >> the arts. The question i'm proposing, or trying to reason is,which >> group of >> individuals might, potentially produce the best & unique a,e, quality >> work? >> mando
