>Can I add something to my original question?
>>I think that (real, true) works of art (paintings, sculptures, etc.) last
for ever and ever. Meaningful. Timeless.
>>That is, in my opinion, a sort of supreme, old, Extropy.
Hi - I am a painter and artist, and would like to respond to your ideas.
I have been away, but it has been called to my attention that this subject
has come up, so here I go again.....
The assertion that "real", art must be an object is wrong. Extropic art
eschews the rigid idea of art as object and explores various forms of
creativity, bioengineering, performance, conceptual art, virtual reality, new
film media, nanotechnology, ideas, etc., as valid mediums. It must.
>>What is not a work of art has (just) a temporary appeal, beauty,
>interest, meaning. Or is handicraft….
Twentieth century music and art's most invigorating element was it's very
changeability and cultural liquidity.
Snobbery in art is a result of illiteracy of the general populace. Images
today are omnipresent.
We are bombarded daily with High and Low Art - and our eyes are VERY
different from they were in the mid fifteenth century. We have been literally
cortex reconfigured to accommodate far more information than ever.
Going forward, 21st century explorations of slippery new mediums will
increase the mutability of design and problem solving, causing artists to
become more inventive, imaginative and spontaneous than ever. This is the
challenge and the excitement about art these days!
> Laws, principles of science are timeless, meaningful, for ever?
> After Popper (and Einstein, etc.) I’m not sure.
Art & Science. Digital mediums for creative minds. Created by and for a
new breed of cross-pollinating meme spreaders. Quite literally by the time
one has mastered a program well enough to express one's ideas, it is time to
learn a new one.
I am once again mystified that once more, on this list of "futurists",
when art is brought up we are still talking about sappy smiling cross dresser
Mona Lisa and her ancient armless cousin the Venus De Milo.
Why be five centuries behind in one's information about art while thirty
years ahead in one's ideas about science?
> So art is timeless (lasts for ever) because is qualitative, but not
> merely subjective.
> Science laws are quantitative, objective, but not final.
> And – interesting enough - in art and in science we can often
> identify exactly the same philosophical “input”.
It is true that exceptional art and music does bridge cultural and time
barriers, and carries the user into a new consciousness which can prepare the
mind for the future and for the upheavals that the new technologies and
scientific discoveries will bring upon our cultures.
However this does not imply timelessness, but timeliness, in other word, good
art is of our time and for our time, yet perhaps a bit *ahead* of it's time.
Love and Plebiscites,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:22 MDT