In a message dated 9/12/2000 7:32:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
GBurch1@aol.com writes:
>
>
> I don't think this is entirely true: There have been "official"
definitions
>
> of art, high and low, in many other periods, from the influence of the
> National Academies in France and the UK in the 18th-19th centuries back to
> the impact of royal or ecclesiastical patronage in earlier times. Those
> institutions sought to create a bright line between art/not-art.
True Greg, true. And those standards were severely challenged when the camera
was invented. Even the camera obscura (15th century) made realism less of an
art and more of a science.
My point is: Technology lead us out of classical art, which went in search of
the perfection in 2 dimensional representational imagery. When the color
camera was able to take far better images of "reality" with just the click of
a button, mere copying became boring. People's attention turned back to
composition, form.. and abstract expression.
Technology today will also lead us out of our current narrow views of art.
It's best to observe, learn..or more exciting - to explore. "What is" (was?)
art (when the rapid changes in mediums present a landscape in wild upheaval)
has been left behind in the 20th century, or discussed in the far far future.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:43 MDT