I agree with every word of Michael's posting!
In a message dated 9/29/12 5:23:30 AM, [email protected] writes: > On Sep 29, 2012, at 4:47 AM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To keep style subordinate to substance, shouldn't an aesthetic ideal > eschew > > effects? > > What do you mean by "style"? "substance"? "effects"? Everything has > "style," > and just enough of it. (It's like the joke, "My, we've had a lot of > weather > this year.") And everythng has "substance" (a vague term). You are making > an > impractical dichotomy between the two. "Style" cannot exist without > "substance," nor can "substance" be made manifest without "style." > > Moreover, why do you propose that style be subordinated to subtaance? As I > use > the term, an "aesthetic ideal" does embrace "effects," but maybe not the > ones > someone (you?) might prefer. Some effects may be judged as sedate or > serene > (classical Greek sculpture) and others as dramatic or exaggerated > (Hellenistic > sculpture). One viewer may prefer, say, the turbulence of the Mausoleum > sculptures and find the sedate effects of the Panathenaic frieze to be > tediously intrusive. Others may like Satie's Gymnopaedies and be put off > by > Mozart's bombastic scores. > > Note, btw, that the word "style" is derived from "stylus," a writing tool, > and > is now often used to indicate the distincitve qualities of a work that are > typical of the maker, as handwriting is uniquely linked to one person. > Stylistic analysis is a common technique in artistic study and is used to > help > ascertain the authorship of disputed works. I read you comment to suggest > that > the maker's characteristic decisions and approach should be subordinated > to > some other consideration--content, I suppose, which is a reasonable > interpretation of "substance"--but I don't see how that is practical > because > content cannot be expressed in immaterial form, and when the artist forms > the > substances, he does so in his typical, normal manner, i.e., with his > style, > which (at least in his mind) conforms to the substance of the idea. > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady
