I have been away too long!
Please excuse me for not having any interaction in the past few days. As can be said, I was otherwise occupied. ... In the reading of what has been written since I last read this discussion, many fine 'essays' have been posted.
Matters that go to the core of the subject have been raised. These points give answers; others, more raised questions, and as I believe Roberta pointed out, just not to be answered......As I understood her reply to be in the case of the the demystification of art. I think then art WOULD be useless, in most cases.
For me, so much of the 'usefulness' of art is intangible. Mystical. Thought provoking. Unlike mathematics, is there a Correct answer to "Art"? I must answer a resounding "NO!"
Is it not the wonder of the intrigue; the emotional effect art can produce; questions it probes; the limits it challenges, a prodding of our minds and psyches, that spurs us humans with the NEED to produce art? In this, there is no delineation between utilitarian, aesthetically pleasing objects, compared to commercial art, fine art or other categories of art not mentioned.
I do not feel as if I could play, 'catch up', at this point. At the least, without being a bore, to the additional postings. However, this particular posting by lightwizard, hit the note intrigued me, after reading "The Prologue", between ten to twenty times, lightwizard addresses a significant point, I believe.
Lightwizard wrote:The writer may have fundamentalist or purist doctrines when discussing art but it hasn't a great deal of credibility in this day and age.
One of my unspoken questions, was this *very* statement. The writer was Oscar Wilde, as already reported. This is the Prologue to Dorian Grey, which I believe <????> was his only published novel.
Without question, I think Mr. Wilde was a purist and a fundamentalist. He is not our contemporary. He was a man who wrote for his time, more often. for BEFORE his time. Yet, I question, is there not still credibility to his words, 'in this day and age'? In light of a world of ideas, a world that art seeks to create, a world that does not exist, if only in our minds....would his statements be any less true? As to credibility, how can there be credibility in thoughts on an intangible subject?
This is not a disagreement to your statement, Lightwizard, but rather, you simply raised more questions in my mind!
As to the statement about Balhaus vs. art hanging on walls.... onn this, I maybe able to top you. There are drinking glasses that I own, purchased at Marshall's, that I truly believe surpass much that masquerades as art. Yet, then, is that not another value judgment on my part? With NO answer? I feel like the proverbial cat chasing its tail.....
Thank you~
fatima10
That's true, of course. But this would be like comparing the practical use of a map to arrive at one's destination with breathing in order to get there alive.
