On Jul 3, 2009, at 9:24 AM, Frances Kelly wrote:
If nature demoralizes human cultural acts, then in effect nature
renders culture without any ethical basis whatsoever, which is an
acceptable conclusion in my opinion. No act in nature is
ethically bound, thus any natural act is without morality, and
nature will further demoralize any cultural act, and make any
extreme cultural act immoral. This premise presumes that an
extreme cultural act can be unnatural.
You have overanalyzed and overinterpreted my motto.
"Art moralizes nature" means that the entire amoral, nonethical
character of nature is "moralized" by the rules and canons of that are
imposed on its qualities by art. Color harmony, the attractiveness of
various ratios, the effect of curves and straight lines, etc.--all of
these are "rules" that describe desired or "good" aspects of a WOA.
Hence, art "moralizes" nature, art imposes rules of good and bad on
nature.
"Nature demoralizes art" is a pun on "moralize." It indicates that
whatever the artist does, Nature outdoes it, contradicts it,
overthrows it ... thus, nature "demoralizes" art, to the chagrin of
the artist.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
