ANST - authenticity vs aesthetics
jschumac at uns-dv1.jcpenney.com
Mon Aug 18 10:28:38 PDT 1997
> >But the former would win because it is complex and aesthetic even if
> >produced with modern materials with modern tools in
Does anybody else find it a bit humorous to be debating the use of
period methods vs. modern tools on an internet mailing group?
I suggest that some of these posters should handwrite their replies
(using a feather pen) and hand deliver them to all the recipients on
this list. That would certainly be more authentic.
As for my 2 cents worth...
There's some very valid points. Art is so subjective. To one, the
art is the skill used to make a thing. To others it's the end result.
As for the beauty of the thing itself, I'd say it's in the end result.
For any object, there's the construction phase and the phase where you
enjoy/use it. In the end, the "enjoy" phase is usually much longer and
the details of how it was constructed eventually fade into trivia.
A simple un-adorned box is not, in my opinion, art. It's construction
may be very worthy of praise. There's a certain skill involved. I
don't believe this is art though.
Art evokes beauty. An artist brings out the beauty. Construction
skills do not necessarily do this. It takes more than being able to
assemble a box, no matter how it was built.
For instance, anyone can write letters, but writing a novel is an art.
I've never really paid much attention to A&S. But, are there separate
categories that distinguish between the artist's eye vs. construction
-Karl von Augsburg
Joel Schumacher JCPenney Co. - UNIX Network Systems
jschumac at uns-dv1.jcpenney.com 12700 Park Central Pl
(972) 591-7543 Dallas TX 75251
To be removed from the Ansteorra mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe ansteorra".
More information about the Ansteorra