that is easy to find out
mando
On Mar 20, 2010, at 5:27 PM, Boris Shoshensky wrote:
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
