That is the problem. Art is now intent and context; sometimes form. The ability to ascribe a dictum to the nature of art at the turn of the millennium seems useless.
Is art form, is it a process, is it a state, is it a big, glazed jelly donut? Absulutely, if you place it in the right context and it communicates something about our condition, creates wonder, challenges the mind, inspires appreciation - in short creates a desired response. Absolutes may be destroyed, but parameters are still extant. ---- John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Yes, to make art, to leave art. Because art is not a profession, > literature; Musil said, is not an activity, it is a state. Not to want to > make art, in extreme cases, it is that art. State which was seen at every > moment, yes. If not, it is to fall down in the sphere of the separate > fields. The work of art exceeds the policy, it includes it, as a creation of > a different world. It is a question of leaving the circle, to be it. With > me you do not appear disillusioned while not believing in the > "spectacle of the action". The spectacle, also pretty and sizeable is the > banner under which it prevails, is always spectacle. Not in it to believe, > it is not to believe in the lures. If art is artifice, it is of a lure much > larger, more vital, about which it all is... " Frédérika > > http://thth.free.fr V2 > THe Cruci-Fiction in Black. > > [the hype doesn't work...] > > ______________________________________________ > SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe > Info, archive and help: > http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre > > > ______________________________________________ SPECTRE list for media culture in Deep Europe Info, archive and help: http://coredump.buug.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/spectre
