Hi Ant,
{quote}
I would tend to agree with John here. This is because the MOQ implies that a
master in fine art is not totally working Dynamically (i.e. just within the
code of Art) but also incorporates the
intellectual techniques (i.e. the accepted manipulation of painted symbols and
motifs in which to produce traditional “good” art) of the fine artists
preceding him or her (even if only to a small degree). As with the best
literature or music, the accepted rules for high quality work usually need to
be learnt before they can be broken; if this step is avoided you risk ending-up
with an "art" piece by a Tracey Emin rather than an art piece by a Picasso (at
his best anyway).
Not familiar with Tracey Emin, but was intrigued by "Dark Bed".
-----
I absolutely agree. the accepted rules for high quality work usually need to be
learnt before they can be broken. I would add that the rules are broken in
steps, and if the step is not too big, it can be statically latched and become
incorporated into the rules. Art has moved further into abstraction in steps.
Kandinski would not have been admired in the middle ages because that would
have skipped too many steps. The Impressionists provided the intermediate step
required to make abstraction understandable.
Mary
- The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
