Re: ars longa
Matthew_Stevenson@baylor.edu
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:33:25 -0600
again i agree with scottie. i must be coming down with something. anyone
remember the emperor's invisible clothes? ern malley was the magnificent
robe.
but now i regain my senses and disagree with scottie. yes art must be
directed by an artist towards some goal to have value, but the wonderful thing
about the human mind is that is is capable of working without conscious
thought. so artists can at times not be aware of something indelibly present
in their art. i do believe, however, that the search for this subconscious
treasures can be taken too far, as in the emperor's clothes...matt
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 08:15:00 +0000 rbowman@indigo.ie (Scottie Bowman) wrote:
>
> Surely the whole point of the Ern Malley episode was that
> the critics who projected meanings onto the poems were seen
> to be the idiots. And, unless I'm mistaken, that was the joker's
> 'intention' in the first place.
>
> They were fundamentally the same kind of idiots who hail
> computer generated pictures or the daubs of chimpanzees
> as works of art. A landscape or a piquant human face may
> arouse all kinds of emotions but they cannot be regarded
> as pieces of art until an individual human mind has deliberately
> worked to transform them into something else altogether.
>
> That intended outcome by one man or woman is what
> qualifies it to be even considered as an art work. (And
> don't talk to me about the moving effects achieved by
> the commuinal improvisations of the local student theatre group.)
>
> Scottie B.