I said: > > Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules. Bob added:> > That sounds to me like an arbitrary rule. > HAR! Then I guess we agree.
> Hi, > > Monday, January 24, 2005, 8:28:05 PM, pnstenquist wrote: > > > Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary > > line. > > Why? > > > Although Dali mimiced reality, most of his work (but not all) > > departed sufficiently from the real to make it unmistakably surreal. > > So what? It doesn't mean it was a lie > > > But how much evidence does the artist have to offer in order to > > escape the lie? > > I don't understand the question > > > Are painters who use a photo realist style obligated > > to paint only things that really exist? > > Nobody's obliged to do anything. Did you think I implied in my > comment that they were? > > > I think not. An attempt to > > deceive in the cause of artistic expression is not necessarily > > nefarious. > > Nor is lying necessarily nefarious. But if somebody tells you > something that is not true, and they know it's not true, and they > intend to deceive you, then it's a lie. Not necessarily a bad thing > though. > > > Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules. > > That sounds to me like an arbitrary rule. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Monday, January 24, 2005, 7:44:52 PM, pnstenquist wrote: > >> > >> > And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. > >> > Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it > >> > mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? > >> > Paul > >> > >> Dali's work isn't a lie. He wasn't trying to deceive anybody. > >> > >> The characteristic property of a lie is the intent to deceive. > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> Bob > >> > > >
