Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Following that principle: no rococo, no art nouveau, art deco, no Pollock, no Braque, Matisse, ... I love Bauhaus, but Bauhaus was developed for practical purposes. Art does not have to be practical. Philippe Op 8-dec-07, om 17:39 heeft Lottermoser George het volgende geschreven: > For me the term indicates a use of clever or cunning devices or > expedients, for their own sake; above the desire or need to express > from the heart and soul; or the need to express thoughts or ideas > which "ring true." > > The dictionary suggests "esp. as used to trick or deceive others," > > I don't know if I'd go that far in my personal definition of the term. > > The Bauhaus principle of "form follows function" stuck with me as > student and ever since. Ornament for its own sake does not appeal > to me. For me, artifice stands very close to ornament. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george@imagist.com > www.imagist.com > Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07 > > > > On Dec 7, 2007, at 7:15 PM, Philippe Orlent wrote: > >> Does artifice mean the same as untrue, then? > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >