Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I do not believe that any art is universal - most art is a reflection of the society that produced it. It becomes sort of universal because we become familiar with that culture. Music is similar - how many on this list are in a position to appreciate Indian classical music, even though the general culture is somewhat familiar? Cheers Jayanand On Dec 11, 2007 11:29 PM, Philippe Orlent <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> wrote: > I do believe that there is some art that is universal. > And analysing one's feelings post the initial event that caused them > always reveals alot. For future actions f.i. > Because of my job (influencing mass behaviour) it became an > instinctive reflex. > It all starts with never ceising to ask 'why'? > > Philippe > > > > > Op 11-dec-07, om 01:40 heeft Don Dory het volgende geschreven: > > > Philippe, > > By definition, art is an attempt to reach your soul; bypass the > > analytical > > part of our thinking. Also, art will not be universal: what > > reaches me may > > leave you cold. So, Jackson Pollack does nothing for me but Braque > > and > > Matisse sing for me. Likewise I can spend hours looking at Moore's > > bronzes > > and learn about myself but many Rodin's just leave a shadow in the > > grass. > > > > So yes, art is only practical as it brings us to places we could > > not get to > > without a little help from someone else's vision. People could go on > > without art, it just would be a lot grayer. > > > > On Dec 8, 2007 12:10 PM, Philippe Orlent > > <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> wrote: > > > >> Following that principle: no rococo, no art nouveau, art deco, no > >> Pollock, no Braque, Matisse, ... > >> I love Bauhaus, but Bauhaus was developed for practical purposes. > >> Art does not have to be practical. > >> Philippe > >> > >> > >> > >> Op 8-dec-07, om 17:39 heeft Lottermoser George het volgende > >> geschreven: > >> > >>> For me the term indicates a use of clever or cunning devices or > >>> expedients, for their own sake; above the desire or need to express > >>> from the heart and soul; or the need to express thoughts or ideas > >>> which "ring true." > >>> > >>> The dictionary suggests "esp. as used to trick or deceive others," > >>> > >>> I don't know if I'd go that far in my personal definition of the > >>> term. > >>> > >>> The Bauhaus principle of "form follows function" stuck with me as > >>> student and ever since. Ornament for its own sake does not appeal > >>> to me. For me, artifice stands very close to ornament. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> George Lottermoser > >>> george@imagist.com > >>> www.imagist.com > >>> Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Dec 7, 2007, at 7:15 PM, Philippe Orlent wrote: > >>> > >>>> Does artifice mean the same as untrue, then? > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Don > > don.dory@gmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >