Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 8:28:05 PM, pnstenquist wrote:
> Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary > line. Why? > Although Dali mimiced reality, most of his work (but not all) > departed sufficiently from the real to make it unmistakably surreal. So what? It doesn't mean it was a lie > But how much evidence does the artist have to offer in order to > escape the lie? I don't understand the question > Are painters who use a photo realist style obligated > to paint only things that really exist? Nobody's obliged to do anything. Did you think I implied in my comment that they were? > I think not. An attempt to > deceive in the cause of artistic expression is not necessarily > nefarious. Nor is lying necessarily nefarious. But if somebody tells you something that is not true, and they know it's not true, and they intend to deceive you, then it's a lie. Not necessarily a bad thing though. > Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules. That sounds to me like an arbitrary rule. -- Cheers, Bob >> 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 >>
