I’m not sure what your saying. What causes this “evolution of the possibilities?” Why can you NOT reconcile it with “academical tradition?”
I CAN, AND WILLING, BUT NOT SO SURE THE WHOLE OF THE ACADEMICAL TRADITION WILL. WE´LL SEE
Why are they incompatible?
AS I HAVE SAID, THEY "ARE" NOT. THEY ARE "MADE" SO.
You say that it believes every great work to be “pure, perfect essence.” What makes it not “pure, perfect essence?” You say that the tradition can’t handle “different great versions of a model….because it would compromise their method of perfect, untouchable canons.” Examples?
Vierge aux Rochers at the Louvre, Chéramy collection... arrangements of Mozart´s works, f.e. KV334...
THAT´S WHY THE ULTIMATE COHERENCE WE MUST SEEK IN A WORK OF ART IS NOT A HISTORIC PERSONALITY, BUT THE AESTHETIC "PSHYCHE" OF THE WORK ITSELF, WHICH YOU MAY FIND RELEVANT TO RELATE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
The “aesthetic psyche” is important, as is the history. But you say that social aspects are “superficial” and I completely disagree.
"SUPERFICIAL" MAY HAVE BEEN A REALLY CLUMSY WORD, SORRY, i RATHER MEANT "NOT DETERMINANT".
So what is the problem with scholars using these documents? You said earlier: “I know about art history and art historians, and their analysis rely on the mere scholactic tradition of opinions of previous authorities” which I think is condescending towards these scholars. Yes, it is “starting material,” but what’s the problem with that? Are you suggesting that these scholarly documents shouldn’t get as much importance that they do get? If so, then where should that importance be relocated?
BEYOND HISTORICITY AND HISTORICISM.
----------
HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE THE CARAVAGGISM OF CARAVAGGIO FROM THAT OF THE EARLY VELAZQUEZ OR RIBERA?
Not sure what your point is here. You differentiate artistic styles VISUALLY.
----------
Belamy, I have a simple question for you. Why do artists create?
MAYBE FOR THE SAME REASON THAT SICENTISTS MAKE RESEARCH AND THINKERS THINK: BECAUSE THEY CAN DEVOTE MOST OF THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES TO NON-VITAL MATTERS LIKE FEEDING AND CLOTHING, AND THUS PROVIDING STARTING POINTS TO NEW SOCIAL FORMS, NEW FORMS OF LIFE. BECAUSE THEY DON´T FEEL CONFORTED IN FINDING ALL THE ANSWERS IN A HOLY BOOK OR A SIMPLE LIFE, NEITHER FEELING DISCOURAGED BY ONE OF THE FEW CERTAINTIES IN LIFE, NAMELY, THAT AS A HUMAN YOU CAN´T ATTAIN PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. IT MAY SEEM PRETTY CERTAIN TO YOU, BUT THE WHOLE XIXTH CENTURY UPON WHICH EVEN OUR LATER HIGH-TECH ERA IS BUILT, IGNORED IT.
IN SHORT, ARTISTS CREATE BECAUSE THEY KEEP THEIR MINDS MOVING FAST AND WILD, AND NOT JUST FOLLOWING VITAL HABITS LIKE EATING, WORKING, PARTYING AND FUCKING.
So you say they are not just following vital habits. But what influences them to keep their minds busy? What influences what they depict and how they depict it, whether secular or sacred?
GALILEO´S "LUME NATURALE"? THAT´S METAPHYSICS, AND YOU SEE I´M BUSY ENOUGH TO MAKE MYSELF UNDERSTOOD RELATING TO MORE THE MORE MATERIAL REALITIES OF THE ACTUAL WORKS OF ART TO ENGAGE MYSELF IN MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES.
----------
I forgot to include a couple more examples related to the "knowledge" shared by teachers and art authorities....
Why did you write "knowledge" in quotations like that? What's the problem with the information you listed?
PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE MEAN CERTAINTY, FINISHED WORK, A HERITAGE OF THE POSITIVIST TRADITION I ALLUDED TO IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS. AND,AS A RECEIVED BELIEF, THEY WON´T LISTEN YOU WHEN YOU SAY ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND STATEMENT IS PART OF A PROVISIONALITY, OF A CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT OF INVESTIGATION UNLESS YOU ARE AN AUTHORITY LIKE A NOBEL PRIZE (AND I MEAN JUST THE PRIZE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SPECIALITY). PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT HAVING THE ABILITY TO THINK MEANS THAT OPENING THEIR MOUTHS AND BELONGING TO A PARTICUALR CLASS AND A PARTICULAR FACTION (MAINLY POLITICAL) OF THINKING MAKES ALL THE HARD WORK OF DOUBTING, INVESTIGATING, RELATING, COMPARING, ARGUMENTING...
I CAN, AND WILLING, BUT NOT SO SURE THE WHOLE OF THE ACADEMICAL TRADITION WILL. WE´LL SEE
Why are they incompatible?
AS I HAVE SAID, THEY "ARE" NOT. THEY ARE "MADE" SO.
You say that it believes every great work to be “pure, perfect essence.” What makes it not “pure, perfect essence?” You say that the tradition can’t handle “different great versions of a model….because it would compromise their method of perfect, untouchable canons.” Examples?
Vierge aux Rochers at the Louvre, Chéramy collection... arrangements of Mozart´s works, f.e. KV334...
THAT´S WHY THE ULTIMATE COHERENCE WE MUST SEEK IN A WORK OF ART IS NOT A HISTORIC PERSONALITY, BUT THE AESTHETIC "PSHYCHE" OF THE WORK ITSELF, WHICH YOU MAY FIND RELEVANT TO RELATE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON IN A PARTICULAR HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
The “aesthetic psyche” is important, as is the history. But you say that social aspects are “superficial” and I completely disagree.
"SUPERFICIAL" MAY HAVE BEEN A REALLY CLUMSY WORD, SORRY, i RATHER MEANT "NOT DETERMINANT".
So what is the problem with scholars using these documents? You said earlier: “I know about art history and art historians, and their analysis rely on the mere scholactic tradition of opinions of previous authorities” which I think is condescending towards these scholars. Yes, it is “starting material,” but what’s the problem with that? Are you suggesting that these scholarly documents shouldn’t get as much importance that they do get? If so, then where should that importance be relocated?
BEYOND HISTORICITY AND HISTORICISM.
----------
HOW DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE THE CARAVAGGISM OF CARAVAGGIO FROM THAT OF THE EARLY VELAZQUEZ OR RIBERA?
Not sure what your point is here. You differentiate artistic styles VISUALLY.
----------
Belamy, I have a simple question for you. Why do artists create?
MAYBE FOR THE SAME REASON THAT SICENTISTS MAKE RESEARCH AND THINKERS THINK: BECAUSE THEY CAN DEVOTE MOST OF THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES TO NON-VITAL MATTERS LIKE FEEDING AND CLOTHING, AND THUS PROVIDING STARTING POINTS TO NEW SOCIAL FORMS, NEW FORMS OF LIFE. BECAUSE THEY DON´T FEEL CONFORTED IN FINDING ALL THE ANSWERS IN A HOLY BOOK OR A SIMPLE LIFE, NEITHER FEELING DISCOURAGED BY ONE OF THE FEW CERTAINTIES IN LIFE, NAMELY, THAT AS A HUMAN YOU CAN´T ATTAIN PERFECT KNOWLEDGE. IT MAY SEEM PRETTY CERTAIN TO YOU, BUT THE WHOLE XIXTH CENTURY UPON WHICH EVEN OUR LATER HIGH-TECH ERA IS BUILT, IGNORED IT.
IN SHORT, ARTISTS CREATE BECAUSE THEY KEEP THEIR MINDS MOVING FAST AND WILD, AND NOT JUST FOLLOWING VITAL HABITS LIKE EATING, WORKING, PARTYING AND FUCKING.
So you say they are not just following vital habits. But what influences them to keep their minds busy? What influences what they depict and how they depict it, whether secular or sacred?
GALILEO´S "LUME NATURALE"? THAT´S METAPHYSICS, AND YOU SEE I´M BUSY ENOUGH TO MAKE MYSELF UNDERSTOOD RELATING TO MORE THE MORE MATERIAL REALITIES OF THE ACTUAL WORKS OF ART TO ENGAGE MYSELF IN MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES.
----------
I forgot to include a couple more examples related to the "knowledge" shared by teachers and art authorities....
Why did you write "knowledge" in quotations like that? What's the problem with the information you listed?
PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE MEAN CERTAINTY, FINISHED WORK, A HERITAGE OF THE POSITIVIST TRADITION I ALLUDED TO IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS. AND,AS A RECEIVED BELIEF, THEY WON´T LISTEN YOU WHEN YOU SAY ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND STATEMENT IS PART OF A PROVISIONALITY, OF A CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT OF INVESTIGATION UNLESS YOU ARE AN AUTHORITY LIKE A NOBEL PRIZE (AND I MEAN JUST THE PRIZE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SPECIALITY). PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT HAVING THE ABILITY TO THINK MEANS THAT OPENING THEIR MOUTHS AND BELONGING TO A PARTICUALR CLASS AND A PARTICULAR FACTION (MAINLY POLITICAL) OF THINKING MAKES ALL THE HARD WORK OF DOUBTING, INVESTIGATING, RELATING, COMPARING, ARGUMENTING...
