Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I do believe that there is some art that is universal. And analysing one's feelings post the initial event that caused them always reveals alot. For future actions f.i. Because of my job (influencing mass behaviour) it became an instinctive reflex. It all starts with never ceising to ask 'why'? Philippe Op 11-dec-07, om 01:40 heeft Don Dory het volgende geschreven: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >