r bradbury replying to natasha vita more:
<<
A very nice distillation of jumbled memes that I required many more words
for. >>
Robert, well -- to be honest, that's what I like about your posts, I do that
too... If you mean making too many points and jumbling a lot of 'forming'
ideas ... the fact that you will admit this makes me respect you more.
Too often on the list - when the topic of creative ideas and 'art' come up,
it's done in such a derisive, indulgent way, though often a subject the
poster is embarrassingly unversed in.
Myself - and perhaps I can speak for Natasha here - find it tiresome to argue
fine points with people who are clearly not well educated about the *current
state* of the arts. There is a lot of misinformation about the arts dating
back to antiquities, and people need to read up on the subject before they
post, which they would eagerly do if they wanted to post about biotech or
nano.
Many do their research, ESPECIALLY because: the arts and technological media
are very crucial to the futurist movement - as important as the sciences
which support them!! (Imagine uploading into a virtual world without the work
of visionary artists, ace animators, graphical interface experts, fractal
painters, avitarians, 3D modelers, architects or sound engineers...)
Yet people still think of art in this really cheesy, dumb, old world, icky
way!! DOH!!!
The technologically aware artists find ourselves in the position of debunking
mythical, archaic concepts about art, not unlike how the skeptics must take
on superstition and claims of Spoon Benders.
: )
So you must excuse me for being curt, for I have a lot of fully formed
opinions about the creative process. It is my bread-and-butter. My job.
I liked our conversation, it was like being at a social event or dinner when
ideas can be enjoyably tossed around without that "debate" "Win" edge that
the list forum provokes all too often.
Cheers,
Nadia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:11 MDT