From: Halvor (halvorb@mac.com)
Date: 04/11/02-10:27:59 AM Z
In lack of own opinion, I humbly present this preface to the book "The
Picture of Dorian Gray" by Oscar Wilde it does adress certain issues raised
here :)
Halvor
Tokyo
The artist is the creator of beautifull things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his
impression of beautiful things.
The highest, as the lovest, form of critisism is a mode of autobiography.
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without beeing
charmed. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated.
For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or inmoral book. Books are well written or
bad written. That is all.
The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not
seeing his own face in a glass.
The moral life of man forms parts of the subject matter of the artist, but
morality of art consist in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.
No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved
The artist has ethical symphaties. An ethical symphati in an artist is an
unpardonable mannerism of style.
No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
Thought and the language are to the artist instruments of an art.
Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.
>From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the
musician. From the point of view of feeling the actor's craft is the type.
All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beyond the surface do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
Diversity of opininon about a work of art shows that the work is new,
complex and vital.
When criticts disagree the artist is in accord with himself.
We can forgive a man for making a usefull thing as long as he do not admire
it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it
intensely.
All art is quite useless.
Oscar Wilde 1891
on 11.04.02 06:31, Lisa Reddig at lisa@julianrichards.com wrote:
> Depends on your definition of "practical".
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Shapiro" <sgshiya@redshift.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 5:03 AM
> Subject: Re: The "What is art" question
>
>
>> Try this: Fine art, by qualification, has no practical use.
>>
>> S
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Philippe Monnoyer" <monnoyer@imec.be>
>> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:00 AM
>> Subject: The "What is art" question
>>
>>
>>> I have a draft "definition" of art that allowed me long ago to forget
>>> all these considerations.
>>> To my point of view,
>>>
>>> "Art is a personnal and shareable creation
>>> which gives the author more or less excitement and the feeling to flirt
>>> with the infinite, with his(her) limit to understand his(her) human
>>> condition and the world around"
>>>
>>> I also think that there is no border between art and technique or
>>> science
>>> I also think that it makes you feel good
>>> Art is everything but a label
>>>
>>> etc etc ....
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Philippe
>>>
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST