I think art historians read an awful lot into paintings that has nothing at all to do with the artists actual intentions though.
I agree V, recently I read the Maunch's The Scream was really about music and not stress in the 21st century.
art is the use of one's creative intelligence, some heartfelt emotive experience, and the work involved in transmuting some media beyond its original state into a new form so that a complete aesthetic experience can be felt or even understood by another.
(This lately has become my understanding of art, as distinguishable from other sorts of objects and activities in the, * aka * mainstream)
colorific, soooo glad to see you post...
colorific, soooo glad to see you post...
in Munch's The Scream - it is actually the landscape that is screaming and not the figure you know.
Hi Osso, thanks; it's sooo nice to check back in here again and read up on all you guys. Very glad you've all been at it during my "off-line" period.
That's a cute corgi, too.
And wow, it's great to see people trying to figure out what art is.
I had a teacher in college who said you are an artist if you can tie a paint brush at the end of a four foot piece of bamboo, and concentrate enough to hold your breadth an paint a "perfect" circle with ink. Of course I don't think one need to take this standard literally, but I always felt it shed some light on the ideas of concentration, balence, physicality, control, and form as far as artists' work goes. And this to me, means that art is "a process' and not simply a "product" and that therefore it is logical to hve the experience of "process" tangiable in the final form.
