Re: art&science

From: Technotranscendence (
Date: Tue Apr 11 2000 - 12:15:47 MDT

On Monday, April 10, 2000 12:21 PM Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> I wouldn't say it quite that way--art that avoids constraints is crap,
> like most free verse or abstract visual art or interpretive dance.
> Great art thrives on constraints: sonnets, realistic visual art, ballet.
> The constraints, though, are chosen by the artist. Picasso certainly
> chose different constraints from Michaelangelo, but he did hold himself
> to the standards he chose.

I agree here too, which might seem to contradict my previous post
(responding to Anders), but both are actually consistent. If art is to
communicate it must hold to some constraints.

However, I do not agree with the particular examples Lee uses. Most art,
regardless of school or tradition, is crap. Modern forms by no means have a
monopoly on this. (The difference is perhaps that we have been so
overexposed to Modern forms and also that what generally gets remembered
from the past is the good stuff. Ergo, you don't often see the crap from
previous centuries because it gets forgotten.)

That said, regarding free verse, one might do well to check out my "Form and
Content in Poetry: A Reply to Jackie van Oostrom" and the references
therein. (See ) Free verse
is, in general, not as free as the term -- basically a misnomer -- makes it
sound. The best free verse often shows hints of formal verse -- almost in


Daniel Ust

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:13 MDT