Me too!!!!
--- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> Hopefully that was my last post on the subject. Like Al Pacino in the
> Godfather. I want to get out but keep being pulled back by the need to
> correct others misunderstandings.
>
> That's an a attachment of mine I need to work on more
> :-)
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sep 8, 2012, at 12:03 AM, Bill! wrote:
>
> > Edgar,
> >
> > I thought you wanted to drop this thread.
> >
> > Did that mean you just wanted ME to drop the thread, or was that to apply
> > to you also?..Bill!
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill and Merle,
> >>
> >> If I must, my definition of art, as a long time art dealer among other
> >> things, is a work in which the form rather than the function is emphasized.
> >>
> >> From my site at http://EdgarLOwen.info
> >>
> >> ORIGINS: The concept of art is a human invention, therefore it is possible
> >> to define art in any way one chooses, just so long as the definition is
> >> useful and applied consistently. I offer a definition based in human
> >> perception that I believe useful and quite general. In my view, art has to
> >> do with the distinction of form and function. Art concentrates on the form
> >> of things, and details of form such as symmetry and balance that elicit
> >> experiences such as that of beauty. Beauty has traditionally been the
> >> experiential goal of art, but more recently this has been extended to
> >> other responses such as disgust, shock, and other emotions. Nevertheless
> >> what is constant in art is the concern with form as opposed to function.
> >> (I'm including color here since form is often rendered with color as in
> >> painting.)
> >>
> >> Now everything has form, so art can be seen wherever one looks, if one
> >> looks at the form rather than the thing itself. Eg. the beauty of a
> >> horse's form as it gallops, as opposed to it being a flesh and blood beast
> >> of burden. One could restrict the definition to a product of human
> >> creation, but I would rather just refer to that as 'human art'. We wish to
> >> avoid the problem of not seeing art in the creations of weaver or bower
> >> birds, or in the beauty of nature. After all, it is common usage to refer
> >> to beautiful form of whatever origin as art.
> >>
> >> So what is human art then? Human art is an object primarily created for
> >> its form, rather than any attendant function. A painting is pure form,
> >> that is its only function. So something that is divorced from function is
> >> art, since we must consider only its form. Therefore a toilet in an art
> >> gallery becomes art because we cannot pee in it. It is isolated from its
> >> function so that we are forced to consider only its form. Therefore art is
> >> form divorced from function, or an object whose primary function is to
> >> display its form.
> >>
> >>
> >> CRITIQUE: Now the question of what is 'good' art versus 'bad' art is
> >> another question entirely. I have my doubts about the toilet in the art
> >> gallery being 'good' art, nevertheless I can certainly admire the form of
> >> a beautiful toilet. Recall that the 'artist' who submitted the toilet to
> >> the gallery did not actually create its form, therefore he might be said
> >> to have pointed out its artistic merit, but certainly was not the actual
> >> artist who created it. On the other hand by placing the toilet in the
> >> gallery we are forced to confront its function in an abstract way, we are
> >> forced to consider the function, and all its attendant meaning to us, in a
> >> purely formal sense independent of any participation in that function.
> >> While this can be interesting and might in some cases have merit, I still
> >> find it rather unconvincing as art. Perhaps those who have strong issues
> >> with peeing may disagree?
> >>
> >> Picasso defined art as 'lies that tell the truth'. That's a pretty good
> >> definition, even though I don't consider Picasso much of an artist.
> >>
> >> Edgar
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Merle and Edgar,
> >>>
> >>> Before I chuck it in for the night I thought I'd go to Merle's suggested
> >>> Source of all Truth - the dictionary.
> >>>
> >>> Here are the definitions of 'art' and 'engineering' copied from
> >>> Merriam-Webster Online. I trust you'll accept these definitions without
> >>> smearing them with labels of 'outlandish', 'emotional' or (heaven forbid)
> >>> 'illogical'.
> >>>
> >>> My [I-told-you-so-comments] are in brackets.
> >>>
> >>> Definition of ART [Please note the absence of any mention of 'logic',
> >>> 'structure' or 'purpose']
> >>> 1
> >>> : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
> >>> 2
> >>> a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural: LIBERAL
> >>> ARTSb archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
> >>> 3
> >>> : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
> >>> 4
> >>> a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the
> >>> production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
> >>>
> >>> Definition of ENGINEERING [Please note the emphasis on 'science' and
> >>> 'mathematics' (which are based on 'logic' and assume 'structure'), and
> >>> 'purpose' ("...useful to people")
> >>> 1
> >>> : the activities or function of an engineer
> >>> 2
> >>> a : the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of
> >>> matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people
> >>>
> >>> So, what's next? More 'third eye' suggestions?
> >>>
> >>> ...Bill!
> >>>
> >>> --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Merle,
> >>>>
> >>>> My remarks were not outlandish nor emotional or illogical.
> >>>>
> >>>> My remarks were my opinion based on my experience.
> >>>>
> >>>> What 'facts' do you think I should check? Should I have checked someone
> >>>> else's opinion before I expressed mine?
> >>>>
> >>>> ...Bill!
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> rubbish bill
> >>>>> .i would not say that to cezanne, mondrian kandinsky etc .,,just a few
> >>>>> artists.
> >>>>> ..check cubist theories might give you some insight
> >>>>> .please check facts before making outlandish one off remarks that are
> >>>>> highly emotional and totally illogical..merle
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Logic plays a big part in engineering, not art...Bill!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Â bill..artists can be logical too... logic plays a big part in my
> >>>>>> art...merle
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
