[MD] Percepts and Concepts

[John Carl]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

>
>
> [John]
> Art also, is not always beauty and likewise beauty is not always art.
>
> [Arlo]
> Again, this statement kinda stings of this same separation. How can "art"
> not be "beauty" from a ZMM gaze?


A gargoyle is meant to be ugly.  If the artist attempts to make something
ugly  which turns out beautiful, then he's a failure.

How can something "beautiful" not be "art" from within the ZMM view?


 When a rose blooms, it displays beauty, but it is only "art" in the eyes of
a creationist.


John the art critic






> It seems to me the only sustainable way to make that case is to retreat
> back to the separation of "romantic" from "classic", of "surface appeal"
> from "underlying form". And why do this? Isn't the view from ZMM so much
> better?
>




>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>