Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(190)
-
▼
December
(18)
- A Charming Vision
- Big-Band Music
- Mythic Benevolent Post
- Mammon
- Belief System
- The Count
- Road to Ruin?
- CIA Rendition Jet crashed with 4 Tons of Cocaine
- Another Literary Breakthrough
- Murder-Mystery Mystery
- New Pelevin Work on Horizon
- Language and Madness
- Art is
- Tolstoy: Master and Man
- Non-Accumulation of the Superfluous
- The Two Faces of Egotism
- Language and 'Language'
- Doubt, Wittgenstein, a Refutation
-
▼
December
(18)
6 comments:
Isn't that the truth! Or is it?
It might be, Lloyd. Whenever we throw a few words together it's always a gamble whether they make any sense or not, but on the law of averages alone I'd say it's got a reasonable chance of being the truth.
Why did you use the word veracity - a nice-soudning word, for sure - and not truth? And must art contain truth for it to be art, so to speak? A painting, particularly an abstract one, might be very beautiful but have no truth to convey, no truth-value. It just is as it is. Is-ness isn't truth. Truth isn't beauty. That's just meaningless.
I admit my line was more of in humour than a serious statement, though which isn't to say it mightn't also be a serious statement!(Apologies for the exclamation mark) I probably used veracity to make it sound more profound, or simply the attractiveness of the word, though like I replied elsewhere I just write a line and send it out there, having no rights of property over its meaning, if it has meaning.
Though even though I wrote it in humour, it still is probably essentially true. An art work must be true at a profound level of being for it to be real art, or art worth bothering with. As you say, it isn't concerned with a factual truth; for example, El Greco was commissioned to paint a view of Toledo, but self-willed awkward genius as he was, he re-structured the city to suit his painting, unsurprisingly annoying the commissioners.
But the more truth an art-work contains, the greater it is. And as extension of this, the greatest artists are people who dwell the most in truth, which they communicate as natural extensions of their selves. They exhale truth. Though, I think the importance of the structure side of it means that most abstract work is boring, and quickly exhausts itself.
BTW, I think I remember you saying you like the work of Francis Bacon. I couldn't say the same, but he did share much the same feeling about abstract art. I'd, for example, endlessly prefer Paul Klee to Kandinsky.
Though I sholud refine the meaning of structure here, as it did mean for Bacon, to broadly mean representational art. Rothko or Pollock, for example, can make some very enticing stuff, but very quickly tyou're just looking at the same painting over & over again. Pure abstraction is a dead-end.
Post a Comment