I my attempts in art making,the essence is always there. It is never destroyed, yet it is given a new meaning, a new symbol.
AB ________________________________ From: john m <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:44 PM Subject: Re: descriptive / empirical aesthetics? I totally understand this, and I'm sure many artists have the same feeling. I was just yesterday discussing this with a painter friend who expressed the same idea; the important thing is the process - to paint in order to make the serendipitous occurences possible. I definitely sympathize with the idea of the creation process being paramount for the artist (as opposed to a conceptual artist who comes up with an idea and gets bored executing it). What I don't get is this: if the process of painting/writing/composing contains the essence for the artist, by what reasoning is that essence suddenly located somewhere else (the physical qualities of the work) for the recipient? And this is Croce's point: it isn't, it is STILL located in the embodied process, that "crystalline suspension" that Raphael speaks about, from which it can be again transformed into "living energy" (= the a.e.) That's what I mean when I say we have to identify with the artist etc. etc. 17. maaliskuuta 2012 7.26 ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > What i'm trying to say about how i work is that, if it does not come > serendipitously, it > does not have what looking for in my work. It becomes > just another dead expression . > > AB > > ________________________________ > From: > john m <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: > Friday, March 16, 2012 10:07 PM > Subject: Re: descriptive / empirical > aesthetics? > > > > I mean unintentional errors that suddenly become the a.e.in > the work. > > I'll second William's rephrasing here and just add that in my > language it > would only be an unintentional error if you only noticed it after > making > your work public. But like you just added - if you know while making it > that something serendipitous or a happy accident occurred, you make the > choice > of leaving it in and that's intentional action right there. Just > think of > Pollock or an early Feldman composition and you can grasp the > meaning of this > so to speak "intentional unintentionality"
