After finishing Otis Art School under the GI bill in 49'B ,B i took a philosophyB class in a Junior College with an interestB to find out how it related to art .
What stuck in my mind,was theB explanation of my teacher had about Hegel , it was that in my sculpture, it was important to eliminate all unnecessaryB form and stayB only with the meaningful, and since then KI've added "without destroyingB it's essence " and that has been, basically how I've tried to express myself in my work ever since.B AB --- On Fri, 7/6/12, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: From: William Conger <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Hegel To: [email protected] Date: Friday, July 6, 2012, 6:06 AM My comments re Hegel on art restate what Hegel said, not what Aristotle or Nietzsche said. Hegel's argument is that although nature may be beautiful, that kind of beauty is not the beauty of 'fine' arts because nature does not have consciousness (so says Hegel) and beauty or aesthetics in the fine arts requires, says Hegel, a man-made object that is consciously aimed at expressing the highest and most significant idea in sensuous form, again, says Hegel.B The point is to explicate what Hegel said about aesthetics.B To compare and contrast his views to others is a different undertaking. One can go on all day quoting one author on a given topic and then a string of others who said something else on the same topic. Ho-hum.B B B wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, July 6, 2012 3:24:17 AM Subject: Re: Hegel On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 2:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Shouldn't an appreciation for beauty stem from an appreciation of > nature? > No. > > > - Art takes nature as its model. Aristotle <http://quote.robertgenn.com/auth_search.php?authid=212>
