Tweet
Re: Your Style Philosophy
wow....
JB is having a bad day here.[:|] Disdained by Faust, in favor of Maureen Dowd's out-of-date platitudes, and then abandoned by becoming-intense, in favor of Irigaray's psycho-analytic convolutions. Let's give Judith a break already. [86] Faust, surely you can afford a sentence or two of elaboration, so your dismissal doesn't seem arbitrary...i'm far from a fan, but am genuinely curious. [51]
[quote user="BECOMING-INTENSE"]
One thing I do find problematic, is the distinction you create between art and design,
"a sense of finality or completeness to the whole", because, as I've elaborated on somewhere else, there is a difference in kind between the materials that support a work of art, such as paint, canvas, film, stone, sound-waves, textiles etc. and the work itself. Art only attempts to fashion a material object, having a finite duration, so as to create being of sensation, which is preserved in itself for an eternity that coexists with the short duration of material. This bloc of sensations, standing up alone or positing itself, contains the working, sensation, and forces of the work. Even with the suggested finite materials that supports paintings, sculptures, etc., they can indeed become "a very real and dynamic sense of continuous potential and unfolding".
[/quote]
I anticipated you would catch me on this, which is why I used "work of Art," in the sense of institutionally-defined object, rather than art as practice or process. I agree with you that individual art objects can have this potential, but i think the categorization by institutions of art as "Art," undermines the extent to which works can actually be experienced in the way you are describing. There is something about design, imo, which resists this categorization, perhaps because of its intimacy with the body.
But I am very OT. [:$]
I do like that Judith quote a lot, by the way, although I fear you could repeat it endlessly and have it fall on deaf ears....[79]
wow....
JB is having a bad day here.[:|] Disdained by Faust, in favor of Maureen Dowd's out-of-date platitudes, and then abandoned by becoming-intense, in favor of Irigaray's psycho-analytic convolutions. Let's give Judith a break already. [86] Faust, surely you can afford a sentence or two of elaboration, so your dismissal doesn't seem arbitrary...i'm far from a fan, but am genuinely curious. [51]
[quote user="BECOMING-INTENSE"]
One thing I do find problematic, is the distinction you create between art and design,
"a sense of finality or completeness to the whole", because, as I've elaborated on somewhere else, there is a difference in kind between the materials that support a work of art, such as paint, canvas, film, stone, sound-waves, textiles etc. and the work itself. Art only attempts to fashion a material object, having a finite duration, so as to create being of sensation, which is preserved in itself for an eternity that coexists with the short duration of material. This bloc of sensations, standing up alone or positing itself, contains the working, sensation, and forces of the work. Even with the suggested finite materials that supports paintings, sculptures, etc., they can indeed become "a very real and dynamic sense of continuous potential and unfolding".
[/quote]
I anticipated you would catch me on this, which is why I used "work of Art," in the sense of institutionally-defined object, rather than art as practice or process. I agree with you that individual art objects can have this potential, but i think the categorization by institutions of art as "Art," undermines the extent to which works can actually be experienced in the way you are describing. There is something about design, imo, which resists this categorization, perhaps because of its intimacy with the body.
But I am very OT. [:$]
I do like that Judith quote a lot, by the way, although I fear you could repeat it endlessly and have it fall on deaf ears....[79]
Comment