[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Great speech video on "Sound"

----- Original Message -----
From: Fabio_A
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: Great speech video on "Sound"
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:04:49 +0200

2010/10/26 Mark Showalter <folkstone57@operamail.com>
> > > Mark S. wrote:
> > But my original question was: what is art or a definition of what
> > is or constitutes art.
> I'd say: communication coherent to the artist's intention.
No clue what your definittion means.
Sorry, it's rather difficult for me discussing about that in my non native language, but I'll try again.
Let's start with this: art is a form of "communication" between the artist and the public, isn't it ?

Yes, I agree.

It should be "coherent" to the artist intention means that the work must have an intent and that intent is well rapresented.

Sure, but this also is moving towards the ability of the artist to create art. So, someone with 2 years experience would probably be less able than someone with 30 years experience. I'm speakling in general here as in all things being equal & leaving out the instant genius & the person who will never improve.

The first is an idea or a magician or so....catched by the artist and represented in his piece of art made in studio or even improvised when the artist must lives deeply the intention to explore and bring people into new territories while he's making art.
"Coherent" means that the artist must be able to builds new "bridges" to connect public with that idea or magician.

I on't know what "magician"  means here so I think you may be translating a word into English incorrectly. I think I understand your use of "coherent", so  I'm good so far.......I hope.

> IMHO, Art is "a value" shared between the artist and the public
> that just works on a different level of our brain and in a
> subjective way.

OK, but different level from what? Also, why only subjective? Can art not also be viewed objectively?
- "Dirrent level" respect our normal state of exploring, knowing, undestanding, liking or disliking things. IMHO, Art talks to each trough "channels" (if it does making sense for you) that are different from the usual ones and that could be different from person to person.

I wouldn't say different channels but rather hightened or something like that.
- Not "only subjective", but "mostly" subjective: we can feel the same piece of art 'cos we are connected to that piece of art trough the "same channel". Or you consider Art something that doesn't say nothing to me, just because that "channel" doesn't work for me.

Sure, personal taste, awareness of the message, cultural differences, etc. all lead to how the person experiencing the piece of art will either get it or not. Here is also where objective experience comes into place. For instance, in the "1812 Overture" if you don't recognize the French theme the historical aspect of the music won't be realized. When I look at Hindu art most of the characters are meaningless to me because I simply don't know who they are or what they represent. So, even though I can see the beauty of the piece I have no understanding of the meaning or the story it's from, etc.

Hope it makes sense.
Me too, let me know how I did!


Mark Showalter
Minden Jot!



Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com