That would apply to "any" basic form, flower. human, animal, fruit,etc..
And that has been done from day one.
mando
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:55 PM, joseph berg wrote:
Concerning the abandonment of form, the following recent article says:
- They just need to look at it and know the basic form (i.e., three
stems
may be used to form a triangle). Once the form is created, anything
can be
used to fill in the arrangement."
http://www.starbulletin.com/features/
20100315_ikebana_with_a_youthful_flair.html
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:34 PM, William Conger <w-
[email protected]>wrote:
I don't think it's the case with design as you suggest. Design is
generally more collaborative than what you mean by art and it
certainly
relies on interactive technology. Further, design is aimed more
specifically at products and thus any design curricula needs to
include a
lot more societal groups and interests than the solitary artist in
the
studio. I think the expanding arenas for artists are fine and aid
their
roles as image-makers and critics of culture. Although I detest
terms like
"cultural production" I do understand how they help to identify
"post-studio" (the artist out in society and engaged with culture)
and more
collaborative art and design identities. I am for an inclusive
approach.
My chief objection to the current directions in art education, and
thus
aesthetics, is the increasing abandonment of form -- I mean the
visuality of
form and the history of art as an evolution of form and style --
and the
near exclusive concentration on social science as art. This
aggrandizes what
is called "situational art or aesthetics" which all but erases any
interest
in the personal identity of the artist as one who embodies or
objectifies
form as a metaphor or concrete stand-in for human experience.
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: Frances Kelly <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, April 13, 2010 8:52:21 PM
Subject: RE: What if we took this view
The recent messages kindly posted by Saul and William are still
being digested by me, but an injected footnote of sorts might be
of interest. It may be relevant to consider the relation between
"art" and "design" in most academic curricula. Many schools and
colleges and universities have entities that they call
collectively "art and design" which usually leans toward the
visual but away from the architectural. If it is true that such
art at least in academia is drifting away from the humanities and
philosophy but more toward the technes and sciences, then it
seems to me that design is drifting away from logic and theory
but more toward craft and skill. My rough scan of design
calendars from several noted institutes and departments of design
clearly indicate this. Early in the previous twentieth century
and up to its last quarter the calendars show there was great
emphasis put on such subjects as history and semiotics and
empiricism and theory, but not so anymore. The emphasis now seems
to be more capitalist and economic and practical. The governments
of western industrial nations have also seemingly quit backing
facilities like patriotic "design councils" for some political
reason unknown to me. My main point is perhaps that art and
design are drifting apart in opposite directions, with goals that
are vague, and that seem to be unsatisfactory. Perhaps the best
thing that is occurring here, if there be one at all, is the
merging and blending of art with science and of design with art,
but then it is not fully clear just what gap these new polemic
dualities might be bridging.
--Frances
