Re: FiFtEenTh cEntUrY aRt Vs. sTatE oF tHe aRt sCieNcE

From: Natasha Vita-More (
Date: Sun Apr 16 2000 - 17:17:46 MDT

At 04:19 PM 4/16/00 -0400, Michael wrote:

> wrote:

>> 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,
>>film media, nanotechnology, ideas, etc., as valid mediums. It must.

Good point.


>yet much art is created with the eye to disenfranchise the eye of the
>general populace. Abstract artists tend to really excell at trying to
>disconnect the audience from understanding.

Abstract artist were following the trend in the arts and sciences.
However, it purposefully tried to create a communication with those who
took the time to learn the language, the terms and the meaning of the work.
  I think that this is quite powerful. Instead of the audience looking and
pictures, it required that the audience think for themselves and
communicate with the art. Many people did not want to do this because it
took too much time or effort, but those who did fully understood the
concepts of Abstract art and Abstract Expressionism.


>I can answer this one: because when those of us who are technically
>astute but not aethetically astute take a look at contemporary art, too
>often we feel like we are being asked to wear the emperor's new

If one doesn't have the talent to be aesthetically astute - why not at
least knowledgeable? Balance.

>As they say in the movies,"I'll see it when it comes out on video."

Both = art modes.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:30 MDT