Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Some more 'cutting the edge'
From: don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)
Date: Mon Dec 10 16:40:55 2007
References: <C7662BC1-A7C7-40D5-BD2B-5FFE1D1FE575@pandora.be> <DAE481B0-645D-4EC1-BC34-E2A272CA4083@mac.com> <6AB0AFE1-B2B6-4169-B6D4-432F3C273C5C@mac.com> <F8763E34-798D-4933-AF30-000F155A6CA4@pandora.be> <EF82AB17-AD66-428D-9C59-991D012E2EFA@mac.com> <C922A174-8E4E-48B3-AA3D-D2005DDF27DA@pandora.be>

Philippe,
By definition, art is an attempt to reach your soul; bypass the analytical
part of our thinking.  Also, art will not be universal: what reaches me may
leave you cold.  So, Jackson Pollack does nothing for me but Braque and
Matisse sing for me.  Likewise I can spend hours looking at Moore's bronzes
and learn about myself but many Rodin's just leave a shadow in the grass.

So yes, art is only practical as it brings us to places we could not get to
without a little help from someone else's vision.  People could go on
without art, it just would be a lot grayer.

On Dec 8, 2007 12:10 PM, Philippe Orlent <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
Don
don.dory@gmail.com

Replies: Reply from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] Some more 'cutting the edge')
In reply to: Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] Some more 'cutting the edge')
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] Some more 'cutting the edge')
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] Some more 'cutting the edge')
Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] Some more 'cutting the edge')
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] Some more 'cutting the edge')
Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] Some more 'cutting the edge')