>I've often wondered about the way critics and art historians seem more
>interested in the 'narrative' they find in the work than the visual a
>painter, for example, works with when developing the image the viewer
>eventually sees. The painter, of course, is both the creator and the first
>viewer, so she has a very unique position because she is testing and
>evaluating as the art emeges.
I guess it should not surprise us that historians, critics and some
philosophers want to reduce visual works to something analogous to
textual works, since text is there medium.
What is funny is how some visual artists go along with cutting the visual
element our of the visual arts.
One thing, though, if we think it is hard to understand the
neurophysicology of experience of aesthetically valuable exhibited
qualities, just think of how much harder things become when we focus
instead on unexhibited qualities, such as a work's semantic meanings.
- George
==============================================================
Post Message: Send a message to artwithbraininmind-l@pks.bu.edu
Web Archive: http://pks.bu.edu/artwithbraininmind-l
Unsubscribe: Send message to majordomo@pks.bu.edu with
'unsubscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jul 25 2008 - 04:03:00 EDT