Re: CHAT: Steg's wonderful .sig (and a question)

Boudewijn Rempt wrote:

> > how the brushstrokes or the color interact with that gist.  It's like=
...
>
> Thinking about the interaction of brushwork, colour, and so on,
> is the only way I can think of that one can appreciate more recent
> paintings. Surely, to the picture-viewer, there's little to like in
> Klee, or even a Dali - you need to go deeper for that. Not that I
> necessarily think of that as a good thing, but rather is a fact.
Yeah... I'd agree with Dal=ED there.  A great many of his works
can only be interpreted critically through the title.  And, of course,
many artists of the era were specifically rejecting the whole idea
of attempts to interpret and analyze what they felt to be unreduceable.
And they had a point at times.

> > In otherwords, you can't just reduce things to what they're "basicall=
y"
> > about -- you, the audience, have to pick them apart, and digest
> > them in bits and pieces.   And to do that picking apart takes practic=
e,
> > and isn't normally the kind of thing you can do just off hand like th=
at.
>
> Practice, knowledge and a fair bit of dedication. I know I lack the
> dedication needed to appreciate certain forms of art - I don't terribly
> like watching films. That's quite general, and I lack knowledge of
> a lot of the idioms. Of poetry, I know that there are whole genres
> I can't appreciate with my current knowledge, and the same holds for
> sculpture - even though I am not a stranger to that field of art.
Yeah, poetry is if anything even more personal than art,
because so much of it is wrapped up in symbols which might
have meaning for the author, but none for the audience.  Milton's
_Paradise Lost_, while IMO one of the most beautiful works of
all time poetically, is practically unreadable without frequent
recourse to footnotes to explain exactly who all those ultraobscure
historical figures are.  Then there are some modern poets who, like
Dal=ED, encapsulate most or all of the meaning in the title, with
even the physical structure on the page giving little insight.  I could
babble on like this endlessly... suffice it to say, I agree :)



=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

Non cuicumque datum est habere nasum.
It is not given to just anyone to have a nose.
        -- Martial
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D