Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:14 PM Charles Haynes wrote: > Having recently seen a number of Rothko's works up close at personal > at the Tate. I now "get" him, and have to agree. You cannot (I could > not) appreciate Rothko from reading about him, seeing his work >

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

Having recently seen a number of Rothko's works up close at personal at the Tate. I now get him, and have to agree. You cannot (I could not) appreciate Rothko from reading about him, seeing his work reproduced in art books, or viewing reproductions of his work. However once I was actually *there*

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

On 4/24/07, Lawnun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these works of art are high both due to the artistic merit of the piece, and the status of the prior owner? When I read the economist piece, it struck me that part of the

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

On 4/25/07, Abhishek Hazra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jul242005/sundayherald1230252005722.asp Super... quote Subbana always reacted sharply to the criticism that Neenasam's activities at Heggodu are irrelevant in a poor country like ours. The

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

On 4/25/07, Abhishek Hazra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but i think you will agree that the public is not a apriori conceptual category. a very specific public is imagined into existence through specific interventions as shared codes of appreciation do not emerge spontaneously. There was a recent

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder, unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is malevich: The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

It feels nice that one can get so much good information to understand art... Being rather art-illiterate (I can appreciate good landscapes, is all), I have newfound respect for art. But, I still do not understand art any better than I did yesterday. I guess this is how my wife feels when I

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that feeling had here assumed external form this tension between communication vrs intent has a long history and something that gets hotly contested when in comes to

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers showed their film of a train pulling into a platform I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas?

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

Is there anything that's not up on youtube? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk On 4/25/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers showed their film of a train

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

At 2007-04-25 19:53:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anything that's not up on youtube? Wow. I didn't even *think* of looking on Youtube. Thank you! -- ams

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

Is there anything that's not up on youtube? super! thanks. well, if the Lumiere's are there then Feynman has to be there too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfVX3f5q30 On 4/26/07, Aditya Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anything that's not up on youtube?

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

$46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as stripes of color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or even a print or photo of

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese. Deepa. On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as stripes of color. The depth and texture Rothko's methods

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

Agreed. An excellent description. As I've only seen the copies (or images on the web), I never really saw how a Rothko work commanded the $ that it does. I have a new appreciation. On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these works of art are high both due to

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

thanks for that interesting take on Rothko, Danese. minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job. And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one almost seems warranted to ask, what's so great about that black square on white background? Even I could