#Animations
John,
> Seeing as you choose to fling around credentials,
I apologize if you felt me background was flung at you. I was merely stating
the basis for my perspective on our discussion. Neither my education nor
experience was intended to intimidate or overwhelm.
> And the golden rule was and is don't let the production element get in the
way of the message.
> If you have no message, then its special effects for their own sake, which is
entertaining but not art.
First, I didn't know art had absolute rules. Who wrote them? I know
you're not refering to temporary rules, since art continously breaks them.
Second, have you ever heard of "art for art's sake"?
I believe I'm starting to understand were your belief originates.
According to you, all art must have a message – no message, no art. Since
having a message can be defined as intending to influence people, and you
define politics as the intent of influnceing people, it follows that to be art,
an object must be political. Likewise, if an object lacks a message, it is not
art.
This would make sense if art did require a message. That requirement,
since art has no absolute rules, is purely subjective. Therefore, whether art
is politics is a mute dicussion, for our fundimental definition of art is
different – I believe "eye candy" can be art, you don't.
…but… (g)
Incidently, Monet dedicate his life to capturing on canvess the effects
of light. No messages, no meanings, all "eye candy". He was into painting for
the pure visuality of it.
> While you may keep some of your work hidden it still expresses meaning on
some level.
Again, you are talking about my art as if you had the vaguest idea about it,
which you don't. A lot of my work is "eye candy" – visually or auditorially
pleasing. The "Golden Section" is purely visual, is used through art, and has
zero meaning too.
> Your work influences you, as do your friends, the world etc. You are a
product of your society,
> and vice versa, so it goes. The political message is there, whether you are
aware of it or not,
> whether it is your intent or not.
It's like a circular argument – art must have meaning to be art, therefore when
you create art, you embeded it with meaning.
> Notice that artists typically don't try to explain their art;
Could that be because there is no explination?
> they are the conduits of the message who may not even fully understand the
message themselves.
Again, psycho analyzing people you don't know. What message was Monet
unconciously conveying with water lilies or hay stacks?
> I have heard the analogy of a bowel movement before and I suppose for an
undisciplined artist this is
> an appropriate analogy.
Maybe an undisciplined artist, but still an artist and therefore the metephor
is applicable – art can be created without meaning. That is where your
arguement fails, John. You talk in absolutes. Any argument which seeks to prove
absolutes is defeated by ong,Z2+'*g38&.2[0x'.3xg2,'f22(6:a7r0xg2 >*7620c&23
*33,&z2(6g