All that is real is incomprehensible - Sent from my iPhone Please excuse grammar and spelling errors Expect everything - fear nothing - or did I get that backwards Saul ostrow 646 528 8537
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:16 PM, caldwell-brobeck <[email protected]> wrote: > Is that "All that is real..." business said subjectively speaking? Or is > that an objective truth? > > I actually find art a wonderful way to challenge my subjectivity ( i.e my > interpretation of my experiences); it's why I enjoy drawing the same scene > repeatedly, or working from the same model. It's amazing the things one > discovers. > > Cheers; > Chris > > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, saul ostrow <[email protected]> wrote: > >> all that is real is your subjectivity - which you dare not test - or >> question - because of you did so who you are would be unstable - this is >> the appeal of art as the affirmation of that which is nothing varifiable >> >> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM, ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected] >>> wrote: >> >>> Describing significant form, to me is more difficult that creating >>> what I >>> would call significant form. >>> Armando Baeza >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: William Conger <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:57 PM >>> Subject: Re: is list dead? >>> >>> I'm not upset >>> by that. >>> >>> Read my essay. I argue that the word moral and its implications was >>> dropped >>> after the early modernists talked about formalist theory, art for >>> art's sake, >>> the significant form, etc. but their ideas were precisely the >>> same as those >>> embedded in the Beaux-Arts Style. In that way, the supposed >>> break between >>> Beaux-Arts and modernism was as much manufactured as it was >>> true, maybe more >>> manufactured. The art of the two types looks different but >>> was it truly >>> different in fundamental theory? Words like moral became taboo >>> in serious art >>> talk. But to say the same thing with other words, like >>> 'significant form' was >>> accepted, and still is. >>> wc >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message >>> ---- >>> From: Slostrow2 <[email protected]> >>> To: "[email protected]" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sun, July 29, 2012 7:46:44 PM >>> Subject: >>> Re: is list dead? >>> >>> Bur levy Strauss would tell us that this is merely a >>> fetishisation of self >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> Please excuse grammar and spelling >>> errors >>> Expect everything - fear nothing - or did I get that backwards >>> Saul >>> ostrow >>> 646 528 8537 >>> >>> On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:29 PM, William Conger >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> For the practitioners of the Style, form >>> could be moral when it idealized >>>> nature, especially the human form. Religion >>> refers to theological dogma and >>>> practice of worship according to prescribed >>> rites. I think the Style was >>>> 'spiritual' intended >>>> >>>> wc >>>> >>>> ----- Original >>> Message ---- >>>> From: joseph berg <[email protected]> >>>> To: >>> [email protected] >>>> Sent: Sun, July 29, 2012 3:32:12 AM >>>> Subject: >>> Re: is list dead? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:52 AM, William Conger >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> ...I've written about this topic: Can Art >>> Be Moral Again? (published on >>>>> website www.neotericart.com)... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Once >>> upon a time, wasn't religion the source of morals?: >>>> >>>> - Cut off from the >>> worship of the divine, leisure becomes laziness and work >>>> inhuman. >>>> >>>> John >>> Piper >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> S a u l O s t r o w >> *Critical Voices* >> 21STREETPROJECTS >> 162 West 21 Street >> NYC, NY 10011
