See, walking to school IS helpful
Here is a note i just sent off to my teacher. I thought it might generate some discussion. Lots of things to think about. I feel like going back to sleep...
******
Hi Sheila, i just came across this article about originality, and i thought it might be a good jumping off point for continuing our conversation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2050834,00.html It reminds me of a couple things re: newness...
A paraphrased quote, perhaps from Mr Greenberg, that haunted me throughout my undergrad and after: "Everything new is ugly at first." I think this mainly made me suspicious of art that i was attracted to...shouldn't truly "good" art repel me? And then, where is the criteria by which we can critique it?
Another article i read this week, from the New Scientist, talking about the more advanced we are getting with mathematical proofs, the harder (sometimes impossible) they are to actually verify.
And finally, i am reading something in another class by William Greider, talking about the history of the development of currency. I feel like this is relating to my current "dilemma" in my work about Actual vs Stand-in. At one point he is talking about our current paper money (and even beyond, plastic money) and arguing that this is more efficient than past currency (ie, cattle) *because* it has no actual, physical value. I feel like, while typing that, i just made my dilemma more clear for myself and perhaps answered a question...maybe art has meaning because it is not actually physically valuable but because we (whatever that group may be) can agree on at least some pedestal for it. Um, okay, i need to think out this last part more, but this comparison is definitely helping something in my brain.
Thanks for indulging my deluge.
niki
******
What does everyone think?
******
Hi Sheila, i just came across this article about originality, and i thought it might be a good jumping off point for continuing our conversation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2050834,00.html It reminds me of a couple things re: newness...
A paraphrased quote, perhaps from Mr Greenberg, that haunted me throughout my undergrad and after: "Everything new is ugly at first." I think this mainly made me suspicious of art that i was attracted to...shouldn't truly "good" art repel me? And then, where is the criteria by which we can critique it?
Another article i read this week, from the New Scientist, talking about the more advanced we are getting with mathematical proofs, the harder (sometimes impossible) they are to actually verify.
And finally, i am reading something in another class by William Greider, talking about the history of the development of currency. I feel like this is relating to my current "dilemma" in my work about Actual vs Stand-in. At one point he is talking about our current paper money (and even beyond, plastic money) and arguing that this is more efficient than past currency (ie, cattle) *because* it has no actual, physical value. I feel like, while typing that, i just made my dilemma more clear for myself and perhaps answered a question...maybe art has meaning because it is not actually physically valuable but because we (whatever that group may be) can agree on at least some pedestal for it. Um, okay, i need to think out this last part more, but this comparison is definitely helping something in my brain.
Thanks for indulging my deluge.
niki
******
What does everyone think?
posted by niki at 2:28 PM
1 Comments:
girl, I love what you are thinking about, well articulated, and yes i would agree with you on the value of art.
your upolstry work is the best, it is gorgeous and i am excited about it. the embroidery next to the chunkiness of shape is a nice contrast.
keep up the good work, and i am happy to see you putting this blog page together.
with love shelby
Post a Comment
<< Home