Among things that are important in art, is, longevity. Expressing the universal stuff in general with enough aesthetic skill to be universally understood, is a worthy attempt. mando
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Mon, May 24, 2010 12:15:24 PM Subject: Re: "I regret that, in our attempt to establish some standards, we didn't make them stick. We couldn't find a way to pass them on to another generation, really." In a message dated 5/24/10 9:51:03 AM, [email protected] writes: > Those in power now are the "art is > anything" people and yet, Orwellian-like, what they really are saying is, > Art > is anything, except traditional skill-based art. > I think they haven't realized that if anything is art then skill based art can and ought to take advantage of that. The use of lightbulbs as a still life still shocks many who would be appreciative if they were real lightbulbs in a pile and called art. They would also last longer and be easier to commodify. It may be a refusal to broaden the scope of skill based art combined with a need to as Sual said in part: The subject of art is that aspect of our being we seek to find the means to objectify (externalize, make actual). The sequence of philosophical events Saul described in his other letter may then be finding a rational for describing our own being without trespassing upon the corpus of what many think of as real or classic or good art-not so much a deliberate deskilling as an evasion of comparison. KAte Sullivan If Durer was skill based,and if he took as his primary subject the religious icons of the the time,which he then sold
