Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:35 AM 12/3/97 -0500, you wrote: > As someone once observed, a work of art is a self-contained organism; > and a corollary of that statement would be that any so-called work of > art that must rely on anything extraneous for its value or expression > is not really a work of art at all. To sum up, then, I'm not arguing > against interest in history or in an artist's technique, biographical > information, or creative aesthetics; I'm only pointing out that such > stuff is not essential to an appreciation of the artworks themselves. Sure, I think they are wonderful in and of themselves, too. But what gives him an edge, in appreciation for many people is that they are what he intended. So to appreciate them in their fullness, the appreciation of his esthetic is important. As it is in all art. Art CAN be history, thank goodness. I'd hate to think all history has to be boring. <G> And I'm not arguing that art is bad, or something "less" than history, or other disciplines. I think many arts are practical. ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch To say a human being is nothing but molecules, is like saying a Shakespearean play is nothing but words. Murphy's Law