#Animations
7 messages in this thread
>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.
Of course art are continously breaks rules. However, that rules are imposed by
the art itself. If you see history, with the appropiate perpective, you will
see that we are part of a circle. Things go up and the down. Some people become
outsiders, but after a while (a year, a century, any amount of time) they
become part of the art evolution thread, because they influence other people
(who will become outsiders as well). From my perspective, all of us are in the
same boat, but each one have a different oar. Then someone starts a different
move and the boat will go to another direction and probably that artist will
take the rudder for a while. Then other outsider will move the oar and then
take the rudder. That movement makes waves that can return to that board or
move other boards. I mean, it can start in the Painting Ship, then the
Literature ship will follow. I know that it is not as simple as this, but is
what have hapenned over the ages. Probably now, we have abandon the main ships,
because the society and the art world have become more complex and evolutioned
(and the electronic media is one of the main causes of this), and we are in
little boats that go in every direction, dividing freely in the calm of the
ocean, but always with waves that communicates each boat. And the artist can
jump from boat to boat, abandon the current boat, build one, sink two or three
and even jump to the deep water.
[More]
[Continued]
Continuing with the "rules". No, I think that we are not really trying to
establish any rule. Who wants rules? I'm proud of be an anarchist, I simply
don't like absolute powers and rules and want to leave in peace with the
others, free to create what I want to without attending any movement. And don't
misunderstand me and send me to witches hunting or something like that. Since
I'm REALLY open minded, it's no my intention to establish any rule to anybody.
Live and left live (or live and left die, as McCartney/G'N'G say). So, I simply
state my thoughts, with the only certainty that they are not certainties
neither universal truths.
I have write to you about the "art for art's sake" subject before. I'm agree
with John answer to this point but I want to go a little further. Recently we
have a VERY STRONG discussion about the realism/abstract "war" in Spain (which
I think that most of the time comes from artist who are unsure of what they are
doing or have envy about other people success). Mainly centered in the Antoni
Tapies vs. Antonio Lopez debate (which I'm sure you know about, since they are
one of the most known painters in Europe). Tapies and Co. say that realism is
"painting for the new richs" and doesn't have any content or meaning. Lopez,
who, for me, is one of the best painters in the world, said that their work is
full of meaning. In fact, although most of their work have a deep social
meaning with an style that is apart of this world, others are just pointed to
the representation of places (from Gran Via street to his study under the flash
lights). And althought this paints are not intended to transmit a social or any
other hide meaning, they are intended to transmit the pure feeling of being
there. His view of the real world throught an absolute perfect technique and
some incredible artifacts, frightening me as much as the Guernica does.
[More]
[Continued]
If this has no meaning, as the Tapies' abstract (which sometimes seems me more
a joke, than artwork), if the transmision of the authors feelings doesn't have
an impact on you, as the viewer, probably I have to agree with your idea of art
for the art's sake. But the Antonio Lopez whole life exposition in the Queen
Sofia Museum (HIGHLY recommended if you come to Spain or Europe this summer)
affected me during weeks, asking myself how an artist come become to his view
of the world, how he can develop that perception. That are "ideas" for me and
that affects society.
>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.
Again. How you can say that Monet dedicate his life to capturing light and they
say that it has no meaning. Are his life empty of meaning. VanGogh has no time
to paint, he goes crazy for that. Can you say that their paintings has no
meaning? I doubt if these artist have a meaning in her whole work (which is
their lives) but for me, they are full of it. In fact, I see a meaning for all
the things in this world. How I can deny the meaning of an human soul
expression? San Pedro el Vaticano is only a building? La Piedad is just an
sculpture? Are that expressions of the human beings, the human effort, the
human creativity empty of meaning? Definitely, for me no. I think you ahve to
come to Europe. When you wake up, go to the old streets and see art EVERYWHERE,
then can happen three things: you can be affected by the Stendhal sindrome, you
can realize how magnificient is the art history and how full of meaning is all
the art works, or the two simultaneosly <g>.
I just want to add that to John message.
> Again. How you can say that Monet dedicate his life to capturing light and
they say that it has
> no meaning. Are his life empty of meaning. VanGogh has no time to paint, he
goes crazy for
> that. Can you say that their paintings has no meaning? I doubt if these
artist have a meaning
> in her whole work (which is their lives) but for me, they are full of it. In
fact, I see a meaning
> for all the things in this world. How I can deny the meaning of an human soul
expression?
My disagreement with John, as I understand it, is not whether an
artist inescapably imbeds art with meaning while he is creating it, not
whether that art has meaning at a future time. Your statement conveys that
Monet did not imbed the meaning, but you find it. If that is what you ment to
say, then you agree with my point – artists can create art without meaning.
But, John and I stalemated on our discussion because our fundimental
beliefs, which were the basis of our discussion, are different. Since beliefs
can not be argued, we stopped the discussion.
Ana if you didn't get your point about "meaning" across with this that last
one… BRAVO! My favorite light player was Dega, whose work with light is very
emotive. "eye-candy" hardly. His use of foot lighting gives one a insightful
perception into the being of his subject matter. Does this not have meaning? Is
there not a message about human life and existence? I suppose that depends on
what you see. -JE
It seems that we have reached the faith extremes, hmm? Faith is OK, but its
abuse can drive to idiocy or crazyness, even terrorism (but I don't expect
bombs in my mail box…no, no yet <g>)
Game Over 🙂 Ana
And Check Mate! -JE