CompuServe Thread

Martin, I think that it's not a question if condractions and arguments. Simply, it's more a question of personal convictions. I think that it's true that there are art for art, art for fun, art for the personal artist satisfaction, art for beauty, art for… many forms of art that are not intended to transmit anything (the Absurd, as I have said before, makes this point their basis -which is a message itself) and other that are just there for enjoyment…however, all of them transmit something, interacts with the viewer (an the main viewer is the creator, who knows the real background of the work -not that pseudo-interpretations by critics), that art gives you dark, warm, bright or happy feelings, and spectrum of thoughts that, when showed or not, are there, inside a creation, waiting for us to catch them…or let them pass. Well, in my opinion this is a question of open concepts. In a society as diversified as our world, with so multiple facts, truths and lies, all different, all equivalent, all equally valid, there is no place for certainty (this can sound too poetic, but probably is the exception that confirm the rule…but wait, what rules??? <g> Happy of being an human full of feelings, thoughts, truths, lies and passion and paint just for herself, grettings from Ana Francisca Gervas ps. "just for herself"…Am I Julius Caesar? <g> ^^^