I think too much thought in designing does more damage than going buy any rules.
armando baeza > On Oct 21, 2015, at 3:49 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Have to keep breaking them no matter what you do-and in different ways so that doesn't become a habit. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Oct 20, 2015 9:08 pm > Subject: Re: Art's transformation > > No rules / principles, habits, improvisations, intuitions - but mainly > habits > > Sent from my iPhone - typos curtesy of Apple spell check > > > > On Oct > 20, 2015, at 7:05 PM, armando baeza <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Are > there Rules in the world of aesthetics? > > armando baeza > > > >> On Oct 16, 2015, > at 4:34 PM, saul ostrow <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> I suggest u read > Bourdieu - the rules of art > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone - typos curtesy of Apple > spell check > >> > >> > >>>> On Oct 16, 2015, at 5:57 PM, > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Frances to Michael and Others--- > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks for the insightful > comments to my recent message on the > >> transformation > >>> of art. It is still > a struggle for me to deal with most issues turning on > >>> artistic and > aesthetic ideas, but the fog continues to lift a little with > >> each > >>> > discussion. Permit me to make a few somewhat random notes to your > >> > interposed > >>> notes. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> It may be that a good global > definition of what is meant by the word and > >> term > >>> "art" cannot be agreed > upon communally. If this is so, then there may be > a > >>> risk that the whole > class of stuff as an objective act that is now > >>> subjectively called by the > name of "art" might eventually be discarded. > > The > >>> same of course could > also be held for such classes of assumed objective > >> acts > >>> as religion and > medicine and techne and war and science. It seems however > >> that > >>> this > sort of outcome would be unnatural and unnecessary. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If the > act of art is a natural evolutionary act like a the act of life > > that > >>> > humans are driven toward, then art is a dispositional tendency or > inclined > >>> > trait that prescriptively leans in the evolving corrective direction of a > >> > good > >>> end goal, albeit via exploratory routes. Humans must therefore > >> > instinctively > >>> be artists and intuitively make artworks in spite of > themselves, because > > it > >> is > >>> a bent that they innately must do and > because they can do no other. > Humans > >>> will simply make art, or by whatever > name it might be called, whether > they > >>> like it or not. Perhaps this goes to > the cognitive state of thought about > >> art. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The collective > community of normal healthy persons or learned intelligent > >>> experts or > governed ruling authorities need only be in the least > naturally > >>> endowed or > enabled persons who can sense and sign objects correctly. In > > the > >>> > cultural or social or national extreme the collective community of course > >> > can > >>> entail other elite groups of arbitrary persons, who may be good but > who > > may > >> be > >>> bad and even evil. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The act of art > evolves as an iconic analogy of what preceded it in the > >>> historic past, and > it will be similar to what might succeed it in the > >> historic > >>> future. > This overlapping process of course is how all acts are acquired > > and > >>> > developed and utilized, to include human life itself. If some stuff is > >> > found > >>> to be bad or wrong and false, then it will be correctly forced to > the > >> marginal > >>> periphery of the group. The so called art of the past is > like the art of > >> the > >>> present, and the so called art of the future will > also be like the art of > >> the > >>> present. This is how stuff grows and > advances and expands and progresses > >> and > >>> improves. The art of the > present is therefore better than the art of the > >> past, > >>> and the art of > the future will be better than the art of the present. Now > >> that > >>> is > Peircean realism at its most optimistic, and such realism is probably > >> > the > >>> best philosophy available at the present to address > art. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Michael > Brady [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?>] > >>> Sent: Friday, 16 October, 2015 > 4:29 PM > >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>> Subject: Re: Art's > transformation > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Frances > >>> > >>>> For artistic experts to > however simply accept the artistic work as > >>> > >>>> given uncontrolled or > controlled would likely be to skirt the issue of > >>> > >>>> defining what is > indeed meant by the word art. > >>> > >>> Why? The maker offers it as art; it is > up to others to accept it (a) as a > >> WOA > >>> and (b) to evaluate its merits > and demerits. For both the maker and the > >>> viewer, the notion of what bartb > bmeansb or bsignifiesb precedes the > >> making > >>> and perceiving of it. > Otherwise, how could they decide on what to do > >> (making > >>> and > perceiving)? > >>> > >>>> The extreme poles that seemingly allow art to exist as > given in some > >>> > >>>> form should nonetheless be unacceptable. On the one > pole in the > >>> > >>>> extreme there would be absolute untethered freedom for > anyone to do > >>> > >>>> anything as art, which would be chaotic and even > dangerous or > >>> > >>>> demented. On the other pole in the extreme there would > be absolute > >>> > >>>> rigid control that governs and limits what someone could > do as > >>> > >>>> something deemed To > be art, which would be anticipatory but > boring and > >>> even ignored. > >>> > >>> Again, why? It seems that making an > object and offering it as a WOA is > > like > >>> sowing seeds: Some seeds fall on > hard ground and never grow; some land on > >> thin > >>> soil, which is not enough > for them to take root and prosper; and others > >> fall > >>> on deep, fertile > ground and thrive and bear fruit. Some art objects die > >>> a-borning, like the > seed on hard soil; some are noticed but then public > > and > >>> critical > interest wanes and they fail to catch on; and some attract > > popular > >>> and > critical attention and are esteemed as WOAs. > >>> > >>>> If art is to bear some > import, with value and meaning and worth and > >>> > >>>> usage and power, and to > exist as a global class of objects and works, > >>> > >>>> then a balance is > needed to bridge the extreme poles. > >>> > >>> See previous comment. Thatbs a bit > bifb clause, one that I do not think > > is > >> in > >>> the purview or control of > bexpertsb or blearned peopleb familiar with > >> art. > >>> The history of modern > art (i.e., since the Salon des RefusC)es) is filled > >> with > >>> examples of > boutsiderb art that was scorned by the learned experts of > the > >>> day, and > then accepted by viewers, other artists, and private persons who > >>> > appreciated (= gave value to) such works, at which point the learned > >> > experts > >>> began to come around to embracing those works. > >>> > >>> All > criticism and art philosophy is retrospective, backward-looking. As > > one > >> > of > >>> the 50s abstract artists said (Smith? Motherwell? Still? Pollock?) > birds > >> donbt > >>> need ornithology to fly. > >>> > >>> Michael Brady
