From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 11-OCT-199
2
14:54:54.11
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
CC:
Subj: RE: Art Crit at EKU
Message-id: <[email protected]>
Received: from JNET-DAEMON by PSUARCH.Bitnet; Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:54 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 0514 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sun,
11 Oct 92 14:54 EDT
Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.08) id 1866; Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:48:12 EDT
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 11:45:24 PDT
From: Zachary Philip Matthews <zmatthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Art Crit at EKU
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
X-To: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <ARTCRIT%YORKVM1.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:01:05 EDT
The idea that a work of art can be "endangered" by its creator thinking about
it seems ridiculous. There are as many ways of creating an artistic gesture
as there are artists. Some choose to intelectualize their work long before it
ever reaches any kind of medium, some create spontaneously, not knowing what
the outcome will be, some choose varieties of a mix of the two. All means to
the end should be considered s valid as the others. Some demand more thought
than others, and some creations demand more skill & technique than others,
but all are the creation of a person who has a reason for what they create -
desire, a need to make money, artistic integrity, or merely compulsion. Our
job as artists, viewers, critics and enjoyers is not to invalidate anyone
elses art but to view each piece and artists work with our own personal tases
and experiences. Our value judgements can only be labeled OPINION and our
musings on the work or others is only good as such. Thus, to me, the idea of
any artistic form being invalidated by someone elses criteria seems to be the
critic's selfish "artnocentric" (theres a new word for us) view that his/her
opinion (wehether or not it is a similar opinion of many others) is the
correct opinion.
2
14:54:54.11
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
CC:
Subj: RE: Art Crit at EKU
Message-id: <[email protected]>
Received: from JNET-DAEMON by PSUARCH.Bitnet; Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:54 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 0514 for HRL@PSUARCH; Sun,
11 Oct 92 14:54 EDT
Received: by PSUVM (Mailer R2.08) id 1866; Sun, 11 Oct 92 14:48:12 EDT
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 11:45:24 PDT
From: Zachary Philip Matthews <zmatthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Art Crit at EKU
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
X-To: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <ARTCRIT%YORKVM1.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 10 Oct 1992 11:01:05 EDT
The idea that a work of art can be "endangered" by its creator thinking about
it seems ridiculous. There are as many ways of creating an artistic gesture
as there are artists. Some choose to intelectualize their work long before it
ever reaches any kind of medium, some create spontaneously, not knowing what
the outcome will be, some choose varieties of a mix of the two. All means to
the end should be considered s valid as the others. Some demand more thought
than others, and some creations demand more skill & technique than others,
but all are the creation of a person who has a reason for what they create -
desire, a need to make money, artistic integrity, or merely compulsion. Our
job as artists, viewers, critics and enjoyers is not to invalidate anyone
elses art but to view each piece and artists work with our own personal tases
and experiences. Our value judgements can only be labeled OPINION and our
musings on the work or others is only good as such. Thus, to me, the idea of
any artistic form being invalidated by someone elses criteria seems to be the
critic's selfish "artnocentric" (theres a new word for us) view that his/her
opinion (wehether or not it is a similar opinion of many others) is the
correct opinion.