Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:24:49 EDT
Subject: Re: ART: What Art Is
ME: <she had neither talent nor education in art>
>> Isn't this merely a call for credentials? Does anyone think she was
>> unacquainted with works of Modern Art? Or is QueeneMUSE demanding
>>someone have an art degree from a prestigious school before opening one's
>> putting pen to paper?
>Most explicitly, No!
>Degrees are nice to have, they get respect, and yes, people will take you
>more seriously, But Ph.D.'s don't hold the patent on the knowledge.
>Libraries, the Internet, art classes, all good. Many free. But the desire
>must be there, and an open willing mind.
It seems to me the important thing about (visual) are is that it stands or
falls by its aesthetic effect ... irrespective and independant of art-theory
prattle. Critics are often failed (actors/ writers/ directors) artists.
The most powerful arguments can often be stated without words, let alone
needing rarified and ridiculous PhD level pontification. I am trying to
build up a wholly *visual philosophy* of glyphs and images to complement the
human-era analytic conventionalist methods at www.multi.co.uk/visual.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:08 MDT