Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary line. Although Dali mimiced reality, most of his work (but not all) departed sufficiently from the real to make it unmistakably surreal. But how much evidence does the artist have to offer in order to escape the lie? Are painters who use a photo realist style obligated to paint only things that really exist? I think not. An attempt to deceive in the cause of artistic expression is not necessarily nefarious. Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules. Paul
> Hi, > > Monday, January 24, 2005, 7:44:52 PM, pnstenquist wrote: > > > And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. > > Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it > > mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? > > Paul > > Dali's work isn't a lie. He wasn't trying to deceive anybody. > > The characteristic property of a lie is the intent to deceive. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob >
