From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 08/19/02-01:06:43 PM Z
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Christopher Lovenguth wrote:
> .... To bring up the f64 group as support of "art as object"
> argument is invalid because the context of when the images were made needs
> to be considered. At that time this group of people were fighting against
> the blur..... When you take
> their images out of period by duplicating their work today and apply
> contemporary thought to them, they do not hold up. This is because it has
> been done. When work like this is now made it is in the ream of craft and
> training. Artists have always looked back on past periods of art for
> training and inspiration, not replication.
Well Christopher, since we're doing group crit, I take the liberty of
saying that you wrote & wrote and then you got to a really important
point, and instead of taking out all the hems and haws beforehand, you
left them in, to bury your point. So I do the edit for you, don't mention
it.
This summary is perfect, says it all. Thank you.
> It is fine to do work for work sake. Just like it is OK to go out and play
> touch football with you friends on the weekend and emulate pro football
> greats. Just don't to walk in an arena and expect to be let on a NFL team
> because you play every weekend, know how to throw the ball and have seen the
> pros do it on TV.
This analogy is only fair, because pro football (I'm given to understand,
having never seen it myself) is still a current sport. It goes on every
freaking Sunday (or whenever) and if you're good enough you can still be a
star and make big bucks. Nobody seems to say, uh, pro football has been
DONE -- though of course they should.
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:49 AM Z CST