Can anyone see the flaws in Charles Dickens? The ridculous side of Oscar Wilde? Whats so good about Unmade Bed? I make one of those every morning.
Most artists that are put on a pedestal are the ones that thought of something new.
Are they on the pedestal because they are perfect? Or is it the pedestal that makes them perect?
I think sometimes we have to remember that the pedestal is a human invention, and we put humans onto the pedestal.
Is a work ever perfect?
Based on popularity and longivity, it might approach what we humans call "perfect." But as most of us aware, "perfect" is in the eye of the beholder. Also, just because something is popular doesn't mean it has a universal attraction. The bible and the quotations from the works of Mao Tsetung may prove me wrong.
0 Replies
Tomkitten
1
Reply
Tue 4 Sep, 2007 03:06 pm
Is a work ever perfect?
I can't remember the name of the painter? sculptor? who always left one tiny mistake in each work on the grounds that only God could make anything perfect.
Is this false pride or true humility?
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Tue 4 Sep, 2007 03:18 pm
He understood good PR over good painting.
0 Replies
Tico
1
Reply
Tue 4 Sep, 2007 03:44 pm
Perfect work is boring. It's the flaws that highlight the genius in any artwork.
A perfect flower in a vase is beautiful. But if a petal has fallen to the tabletop the image is so much more evocative even though the flower is now imperfect.
Wabi-sabi, m'dear.
0 Replies
The Pentacle Queen
1
Reply
Sat 29 Sep, 2007 05:30 am
Oh who changed this to the 'books' section.
Just because I put dickens first i suppose.
It's meant to be about art in general.
Change it back! No wonder no-one is posting.
0 Replies
ykw
1
Reply
Sat 29 Sep, 2007 06:29 am
I think it might be perfect when your happy with with it.
0 Replies
The Pentacle Queen
1
Reply
Wed 10 Oct, 2007 05:31 am
Oh come on people!
I thought this was a really interesting question.
0 Replies
Shapeless
1
Reply
Wed 10 Oct, 2007 10:52 am
There are works that I, personally, don't think can be improved because they are that good... so yes, I have a personal list of works that I think are perfect. But I certainly don't think this is due to some objective quality inherent in the work. Saying they're perfect is just my way of saying I really, really like 'em.
0 Replies
Eva
1
Reply
Wed 10 Oct, 2007 11:36 am
There are cultures (I'm thinking of the Navajo in particular) that intentionally include imperfections in their work. It is thought to be a sign of the artist's humility, an admission that man is incapable of perfection.
0 Replies
ykw
1
Reply
Wed 10 Oct, 2007 12:26 pm
Eva,,,, it's me paulaj,,, can you imagine what you married beommming an embarasement to you,,, forever!?1
Amen.
0 Replies
The Pentacle Queen
1
Reply
Sun 14 Oct, 2007 11:51 am
I would agree with you.
I don't think there is neccisarrily a perfect- saying you think something is perect is just a way of expressing the fact you like something.
What I used to get confused about was the pedestal that artists get put on- lets say, I would hear a lot about picasso- people raving about him, and I would think he was some kind of art-god. It's reassuring when you go to a gallery and see his work and see how human it is.
0 Replies
InfraBlue
1
Reply
Sun 14 Oct, 2007 12:26 pm
Well, being an "art-god" is not contradicted by "being a human." Even the gods have all too human shortcomings. Imperfection is part and parcel of both, especially when you take into consideration the fact that you are dealing with an ultimately subjective issue such as "art," and possibly more so when it comes to visual art. I think the art-gods tend to have imperfections that most opiners can live with, or consider lesser than their perfections.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Sun 21 Oct, 2007 12:27 pm
C.I. correctly reminds us that perfection is in the eye of the beholder. I would add that this also applies to imperfection.
0 Replies
ykw
1
Reply
Mon 22 Oct, 2007 10:59 am
~ jl nobody is right!
Amen.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Mon 22 Oct, 2007 02:32 pm
To say that something is perfect (completely good) makes about as much sense to me as it does to say that something is completely bad or IMperfect--as opposed to just "not perfect".
0 Replies
The Pentacle Queen
1
Reply
Thu 25 Oct, 2007 09:08 am
My deduction is: Things are just things.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Thu 25 Oct, 2007 09:57 am
While I do not believe in the existence of "things"--only processes--I agree that "things" are simply what they are. We impose our ranking/evaluation on them.
The Existentialist mantra applies here: "existence precedes essence" (things exist before their meaning exists*--which we ascribe to them).
* There is this exception: we conceptualise something, like a table (or whatever) and then, according to our conception build it into existence.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
1
Reply
Thu 25 Oct, 2007 10:31 am
Actually the *table existed before we conceptualize it into our brain. How we interpret that *table is based on our cultural environment. However, as we see more *tables, our concept about it changes. We begin to broaden our ideas about *tables, and set some value to it in our minds. A "perfect" table is a subjective one based on our individualized "taste" in design.
0 Replies
JLNobody
1
Reply
Thu 25 Oct, 2007 12:01 pm
Very good, C.I., tableness is a cultural construct that anticipates any idea of a particular table.
Plato also "bought into" his culture to the extent of thinking that all its concepts were "versions" of ideal concepts created by a god-like Grand Architect within an otherworldly realm. He was seemingly unaware that such cultural "versions" (like "table") are actuallly constructed by his ancestors and others.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace