Dan: Well, possibly... but I'm not sure you're taking this part into account: “It’s very important to remember,” Evans says, “that no matter how far I might diverge or find freedom in this format, it only is free insofar as it has reference to the strictness of the original form. And that’s what gives it its strength. In other words, there is no freedom except in reference to something.” He is adamant that there is always a reference base pertaining strictly to the original form. That part is never gone... if it were, the work of art isn't good... in fact it would devolve into nonsense. At least that's how I read this.
I agree with you. I think he's talking about the expression of the idea, rather than the idea though. In visual art, there are rules about composition, etc. (even Piccaso had to stick with the basics; i.e. a nose is a nose is a nose, even when it's stuck to a kneecap) and in writing there are the basic rules of grammar. They can be butchered, but if they are, the piece descends into the nonsense he's talking about. In my opinion, the difference between the mundane and art is the arrangement of those basics. To achieve the level of art, they need to make sense, but in a way that's recognizably different than anything previously experienced. One of my favorite definitions of art is, "An object that is done in such a way that the viewer is never again able to look at a similar object and not think about it." A friend here did a ceramic cup like that. I have never looked at a cup since then without thinking about the cup she did. In that instance, the cup she did was sq, but it brought a touch of DQ with it, IMHO.
Carl
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/md/archives.html
