OK. I want to be tickled by your art too. Is it possible? Or that 'reality' is not sense-able by others? Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Phenomenology of Signs Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:01:38 -0700 I do art to tickle the essence , of it's reality,in me. mando On Mar 20, 2010, at 4:46 PM, Boris Shoshensky wrote: > I think, we do art, because it should be sufficient and more to > satisfy the > 'reality' one senses. Otherwise why bother. > Boris Shoshensky > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Phenomenology of Signs > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:12:27 -0700 > > I feel that a related reality in art is not sufficient to satisfy > the reality one senses. > In art the, 'subjectively personal' is the only avenue available to > us. > > On Mar 20, 2010, at 1:25 PM, imago Asthetik wrote: > >>> Cheerskep's "cherishable" >>> is as close as one can get to express reality as sense >>> >> >> What leads you to believe this, Mr Baeza? could you explain a >> little more? >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, armando baeza >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> My point is in reference to realistic art making. Cheerskep's >>> "sherishable" >>> is as close as one can get to express reality as sense , to others. >>> A cherishable expression will always be our only alternative in >>> art, yet >>> as broad as the minds can sense. >>> AB
