From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 14:44:59 MST
At 01:02 PM 2/9/03 -0500, Technotranscendence wrote:
>You may find of interest the further round of letters on the Arts
>Journal website between abstract artist Kirk Hughey
"As it happens, I even like some abstract work - for its elements of color
and design. In the light of the cognitive revolution, however, I find the
extravagant claims for its meaningfulness, and for its ultimate cultural
value, more and more unconvincing. The widely held notion that abstract art
should henceforth be immune from all criticism because totalitarian
dictators attempted to obliterate it is simply a case of cock-eyed reasoning."
-- Michelle Kamhi
Michelle Kamhi comments that she (?) even likes some abstract
art. However, it seems that she is reducing it to decorative work by
commenting about the elements of color and design. She leaves out the
symbolism which is part and parcel to abstract art as expressed by de
Kooning, Vassily Kandinsky, and Miro of the abstract genre. Abstract art,
and all "art" cannot be meaningless. If so, it would not be
"art." Further abstract art, like any "art" cannot be immune from art
criticism which is so familiar to artists and art that to not have
criticisms would be foreign.
In any open discussion and or critique of art, there is a tendency for
rigid application and theory and sometimes an unwilling to see the obvious.
"It is possible, in fact, that abstract art became more appropriate as
scientific insights became more inclusive and abstract since the two
disciplines often work in complimentary accord." -- Kirk Hughey
Excellent statement and I think Hughey makes the more percipient point.
Natasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 14:44:44 MST