tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post2863018449153772532..comments2024-03-28T22:57:07.128-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: ...AND IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN, GOD CREATED THE LINEDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-73707331942323531072009-08-22T20:37:56.132-04:002009-08-22T20:37:56.132-04:00I was responding to your incessant nitpicking whic...I was responding to your incessant nitpicking which had an arrogant tone of its own, fyi. If you spend the time to try to nitpick, at least read what had been written.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-80971177980840151112009-08-22T19:46:51.427-04:002009-08-22T19:46:51.427-04:00the hostile arrogant tone really suits you kev.
i...the hostile arrogant tone really suits you kev.<br /><br />if a 'significant difference' (however you measure that) can cause awe, think what an excessive one can cause !!! <br /><br />what you call excess, another fella calls superabundance.<br /><br />but this semantics stuff isn't my thing.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-55483888940041715672009-08-22T16:48:30.351-04:002009-08-22T16:48:30.351-04:00"excess doesn't have to be wretched. vast..."excess doesn't have to be wretched. vast scale/magnitude/quantity are all frequently used in different forms of art to invoke awe."<br /><br />Two points...<br /><br />1.) Awe is caused by a significant difference in scale between the subject and object, not an excessive one. A statement doesn't need to be excessive to be significant.<br /><br />But more importantly...<br /><br />2.) I did NOT write, "EXCESS MUST BE WRETCHED!"<br /><br />Did I?<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />Reading comprehension would be nice.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-37764460884061386692009-08-22T15:59:32.250-04:002009-08-22T15:59:32.250-04:00"it's not pure logic or philosophy...&quo..."it's not pure logic or philosophy..."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />thank you for that timely reminder.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-6054214927640552422009-08-22T13:48:54.880-04:002009-08-22T13:48:54.880-04:00I agree with Laurence, there are many examples of ...I agree with Laurence, there are many examples of art that focus on the excessive without being considered wretched. Just look at Baroque art. And even if an excess does cross into "wretchedness", the fact that it can still be appreciated aesthetically belies the notion of universal standards in taste. You could say that people who like such things may not be right in the head but what measure would you use to make such a claim? It couldn't be a standard of taste, it would have to come from outside the realm of art.<br /><br />When it comes to the "young eye" and the "experienced viewer", in both cases it is a matter of interpretation. In art, you can never validly say that someone's interpretation is wrong. You can only say that you don't share it. Wildly different interpretations can result in equally valid appreciations of the same artwork. This is why art is so appealing and influential. It's not pure logic or philosophy, it doesn't deal with reality in a direct way, something people generally can't tolerate for very long.theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-53191326285160652032009-08-22T10:28:33.417-04:002009-08-22T10:28:33.417-04:00" Put only that which is necessary and not on..." Put only that which is necessary and not one jot more, is a truism of art. Of course, if your artistic point is wretched excess, this would not apply, but that's an exception that doesn't change the general rule."<br /><br /><br />excess doesn't have to be wretched. vast scale/magnitude/quantity are all frequently used in different forms of art to invoke awe.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-42434458648233007322009-08-21T17:36:47.404-04:002009-08-21T17:36:47.404-04:00"This is why I think it's so important to..."This is why I think it's so important to dispel myths like universal standards of taste and so on. Ideas like that keep people complacent and produce only sterile thinkers."<br /><br />Since there are some universal standards, it would be a mistake to dispel those, just because you are under the spell of dispelling. <br /><br />For instance, there is an innate appreciation toward the beauty that comes from streamlined functionality, a unity of purpose with all the frills trimmed away. Waste not, want not. The same understandable adaptation that make the beauty of utility a human appreciation, prompted Aristotle to rightly discuss the same law of conservation in art. (Put only that which is necessary and not one jot more, is a truism of art. Of course, if your artistic point is wretched excess, this would not apply, but that's an exception that doesn't change the general rule.) <br /><br />Opinions about standards and absolutes should be dwelled up before pulling up the garbage truck. Often there is more there than meets the young eye.<br /><br />The young eye will also respond to obvious symbolic stimuli much more readily than the experienced viewer who can read it intellectually like a piece of text. Which is why most children graduate from soft squishy cartoons, assuming they graduate from childhood, to either something more refined, or no art at all, i.e. direct experience.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-9010957831591028392009-08-21T13:59:34.461-04:002009-08-21T13:59:34.461-04:00kev ferrara: "while you may continue to love ...kev ferrara: "while you may continue to love it, but you can't be blown away by it again."<br /><br />My point was that I don't love it anymore. I still "like" Soutine but looking at his paintings doesn't come close to invoking a religious experience like it did that day. Just like whenever David posts a Noel Sickles drawing, I say to myself, "Yup, that guy was really, really good at what he did"; there is definitely mental stimulation going on, but it's not emotional in nature anymore. It's not love, it's something else. Love clouds our perceptions of things and compels us to wrap our fantasies in ego-driven artifacts in order to keep them aloft. It makes people say some cockamamy things like: "Taste is universal, not subjective", and who knows what else....<br /><br />"human beings don't change."<br /><br />I agree. But while it may keep our ideas of greatness more or less consistent, a species not capable of change will likely go extinct sooner rather than later, like 99.9% of every species to have lived on this planet already has.<br /><br />This is why I think it's so important to dispel myths like universal standards of taste and so on. Ideas like that keep people complacent and produce only sterile thinkers.theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-83235595426194502642009-08-20T21:47:44.302-04:002009-08-20T21:47:44.302-04:00Tom, your experience is not surprising. Revelatory...Tom, your experience is not surprising. Revelatory information is only revelatory once. As you learn the information you become accustomed to it, and then after a while you are acclimated to it and while you may continue to love it, but you can't be blown away by it again. (Unless there is a verrrrrry long deconditioning period.) This goes for any artwork that has that initial power to knock one off their shoes. All the other artworks which do not blow one away, are offering stale information, which one is already acclimated to. <br /><br />It takes a whole lot of conditioning not to respond like everyone else does to a great work of art. One's own time and culture can only pull you away from greatness, it can't lead you to it. That is to say, greatness is timeless because human beings don't change.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-15906688862094835002009-08-20T19:53:49.775-04:002009-08-20T19:53:49.775-04:00David Apatoff: "but how much of that experien...David Apatoff: "but how much of that experience is self-induced by the viewer putting himself or herself in a meditative state? And correspondingly, how much of the credit are you willing to give the artist?"<br /><br />Meditative states are not always self-induced. A person can be quite unsuspectingly hypnotized and made to do and believe things they normally wouldn't. When it comes to art, a person has spent their entire life intuitively selecting and absorbing aesthetic information that conditions them to react in a certain way to particular works of art. Most of this conditioning happens unconsciously so that when they see something new that caters to their conditioning they will experience what seems to be an automatic aesthetic revelation. It only seems to be spontaneous and automatic because most of the causes that lead to it are hidden from consciousness.<br /><br />In the absolute sense, you can't really give the artist any credit. Beauty truly is in the eyes of the beholders, or more accurately, in their mind. I remember going to the Metropolitan Museum a few years ago and being astonished by a Soutine that I had probably just walked by without noticing before. I literally couldn't take my eyes away from it. It spoke to me on a level that nothing else had til then. I was not expecting to have such a powerful experience; it took me totally by surprise. A couple of days later, I went back to have another look at it and could not repeat the experience. Instead of feeling despair over not having the same reaction, I asked myself how the heck I was going to explain it. It turns out that at that time in my life, I was feeling somewhat bored, confused and directionless in my own artistic endeavors and the Soutine appeared to perfectly resolve some of the issues I was struggling with in my painting. When I look at the Soutine now, I see the same things, not a brushstroke seems to have changed but it just doesn't blow my mind anymore. There is no sense of loss in this for me. The painting ended up being the catalyst for some extremely valuable self-knowledge that Soutine probably had no intention of invoking.theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-20541183382495464622009-08-20T19:29:28.793-04:002009-08-20T19:29:28.793-04:00That's great David because in my opinion, the ...That's great David because in my opinion, the world needs a lot less passivity from both sexes.<br /><br />By the way, I have indeed said that to a few women but only because they displayed slightly more masculine psychological characteristics than the average person.<br /><br />And I don't always conceal my identity. Here's my facebook page, I have nothing to hide:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/mz7gum<br /><br />:)theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-90562786789500780482009-08-20T18:42:12.409-04:002009-08-20T18:42:12.409-04:00Theory of Me, in my experience the best way to mak...Theory of Me, in my experience the best way to make a woman anything-but-passive is to start saying things like "I define masculine as 'active' and feminine as 'passive.'" <br /><br />You are a wise man to conceal your identity.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-83075914865193867242009-08-20T18:34:14.954-04:002009-08-20T18:34:14.954-04:00Anonymous TftT: "but its 0.K. to be an anti-C...Anonymous TftT: "but its 0.K. to be an anti-Christ-ian wacko?"<br /><br />It's ok to be anti-Christian but not ok to be a wacko. A person could be anti-Christian for perfectly stupid reasons. For example, they could just be a member of another religion.<br /><br />David Apatoff: "Things are seldom what they seem. Skim milk masquerades as cream."<br /><br />We can never be absolutely certain that what appears to us won't suddenly appear to be something else in the next instant but we can never doubt that we experience "something". The brute fact of a thing's appearance is always certain. In order to form coherent thoughts about the nature of existence you need to limit yourself to this strict definition of what it means to exist. Otherwise you are stuck with assumptions that have the potential to be proven wrong at any moment.<br /><br />"there can never be 100% overlap between male and female perception of experience. We are either one or the other"<br /><br />There may not be a 100% overlap but there is plenty of overlap. First of all, they experience themselves as things existing in time and space. They feel pain and have emotions. There are many examples of females with more masculine physical and psychological characeristics and vice versa. Males produce estrogen and females produce testosterone, although obviously to different levels. If you define masculine as "active" and feminine as "passive" as I do for philosophical purposes, you'll find that both sexes show qualities of both to different degrees. If you ask me, it appears that most females are roughly 95% feminine and 5% masculine while most males are about 75% feminine and 25% masculine. I have never met anyone who is 100% of either.<br />So if you look past the particular set of genitalia a person has you'll see that males and females share a lot more than is apparent on a superficial level. This explains why males and females have similar reactions to art and anything else and can also do a lot to explain their perplexing differences as well.theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-53375841577243876982009-08-20T16:35:06.504-04:002009-08-20T16:35:06.504-04:00Troll, my interest in aesthetics was generated by ...Troll, my interest in aesthetics was generated by my interest in creating stronger work. <br /><br />It is my general opinion that the entire schooling apparatus is a way to civilize children and keep them off the street, the side benefit being, a lot of average people can get employment as guards. Since guards have egos, an incredible artifice of importance has grown up around these institutions which has no basis whatsoever in reality. Of course, righteous self-aggrandizement may just be a method of militarizing the union so they can keep on getting raises as they fail miserably at their one assigned task.<br /><br />Real schooling, in my opinion, is the learning of engineering, applied math, science, logic, and aesthetics. The fact that in all four of those categories, our schools are utter failures, proves my point. <br /><br />Big animals use their tails to swat parasites. If they were made of metal, they wouldn't be nimble enough to catch food or swat flies.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-42268050121195232352009-08-20T10:28:07.401-04:002009-08-20T10:28:07.401-04:00Anonymous/cp-- like you, I am only working with ha...Anonymous/cp-- like you, I am only working with half the information (biologically speaking) so I am not in a good postion to say how the female equivalent of Barnett Newman's "20 lb." experience might be described. <br /><br />However, your point inspires an analogy for Kev, theory of me, and others who have been commenting about whether there can be a uniform set of objective standards or whether we are all necessarily confined to our subjective taste. <br /><br />Just as there can never be a completely objective way to perceive art, there can never be 100% overlap between male and female perception of experience. We are either one or the other, and no one over the age of 8 would claim there is a common objective language. However, just as with art, that lack of a common frame of reference does not relegate men and women to their subjective corners. To the contrary, the hopeless quest for a common understanding is both educational and enobling, and even the approximations and near misses are what make the world go round.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-89736463995145849682009-08-20T01:43:46.061-04:002009-08-20T01:43:46.061-04:00theory_of_me-
Re: "...Christians and other r...theory_of_me-<br />Re: "...Christians and other religious wackos..." -but its 0.K. to be an anti-Christ-ian wacko? ...waiting for your theory to be come reality. All hail Satan!<br /><br /><br />Kev- An iron bull is not bothered by flies, why do you swat?<br />Re: "...in retreat from a marketplace for which they are ill equipped, will gladly take your money so they can eat. Here's the brochure." -as opposed to every college that will gladly do the same for their philosophy majors.<br />Re: "your opinion is kind of a waste of time. Why bother offering it to me?" -Christian charity or cosmic trickster, you choose.<br /><br />Rob-<br />Re: "..have western-style symphony orchestras. Those symphony archestras are universal accross the world. Gamelan orchestras are not." -far more have western-style pop-rock outfits than either of these.<br /><br />Anonymous Bitch- "mask it and slop the paint on with a house brush." points to a technique that would not require nerve, i.e., "balls". Not derision.<br /><br />D.A- you have to meet the artist half-way (arbitrary %) the work exists because of that person. The: idea, subject, colors, tonal relationship, lighting, background, composing/cropping, medium, dimension, funding are all his, kudos deserved. The grain of sand is just one of so many, some art/artist stand out while the rest fill decorative hour glasses. The Koons marketing machine gives him the much striven for and talked about artistic freedom, for those that have failed in the past and shall do so in the future- "Let us pray to our Lord that we may come to that understanding that is wholly without mode and without measure. May God help us to this. Amen" -Meister Eckhart<br /><br />TftTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-43213981479344750962009-08-19T19:30:34.658-04:002009-08-19T19:30:34.658-04:00I don't know about what 20# balls have to do w...I don't know about what 20# balls have to do with the painting...I mean, I am a girl, er, woman, so what do I know from balls? But I do know the Newman painting has a similar impact on me as Rothko's work. It's the glow. Have you seen it in person David? Does it have layers of color to make it seem so luminous and full of depth moving from one shade of red near the top to another further down? I really like the narrow band on the right edge. Doesn't look like "paint slop" to me at all (re anonymous TftT)<br />~cpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-89809693071207778992009-08-19T18:28:58.401-04:002009-08-19T18:28:58.401-04:00Theory of Me-- I am truly tickled that a single l...Theory of Me-- I am truly tickled that a single line by Rembrandt has inspired such an erudite discussion in which Hegel, Descartes and Plato all play a role, so I hate to cheapen the discourse. Nevertheless, when you write, "What has more existence than what appears to us?" I cannot resist invoking the wisdom of Gilbert & Sullivan: "Things are seldom what they seem. Skim milk masquerades as cream."David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-87656819253439136582009-08-19T17:48:05.671-04:002009-08-19T17:48:05.671-04:00Anonymous:
You write "Sure its hot air, it...Anonymous: <br /><br />You write "Sure its hot air, its a sales pitch. Though the phrases are not much different than Koons', looking past them and standing before a painting like Play-Doh is a powerful visual experience that transcends words."<br /><br />Anonymous, in my view an artist can't have it both ways-- he can't hold himself above the sales pitch, winking to the world that he really understands it is all humbug, while at the same time pocketing the emoluments and warming himelf with the kudos. I think Koons is the beneficiary of a fraud upon the tasteless, which by itself is fine with me, but I do resent that so many superior artists "combined high and low art" earlier, better and with more sincerity, but starved for want of Koons' marketing machine.<br /><br />I think there is an interesting issue in your point that "a painting like Play-Doh is a powerful visual experience, " which I do not dispute. I believe that, on the theory that you can see "infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour," you can also turn almost any sight into a "powerful visual experience" with enough patience and good will. I could, for example, sit and stare into Koons' "Hanging Heart" and go for a deep dive, hypnotizing myself the way I might by staring for a long time into the depths of a Rothko painting (or looking at a grain of sand, for that matter). I agree that with Koons the "powerful visual experience" is real, the colors are bright and strong and the reflective material creates interesting effects, but how much of that experience is self-induced by the viewer putting himself or herself in a meditative state? And correspondingly, how much of the credit are you willing to give the artist? Or the grain of sand? I view this as a long term interesting question about the nature of art and it is not limited to Koons by any means.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-6582411001359087612009-08-19T10:26:31.705-04:002009-08-19T10:26:31.705-04:00Laurence said:
"Hegel's 'dynamic fig...Laurence said:<br /><br />"Hegel's 'dynamic figure drawing' was always out on loan when i was at art college. and i bet you've just stolen whole passages from his 'abstract colour composition' series, you big cheat."<br /><br /><br />Laurence,<br /><br />That wasn't art college you went to. That was "A bunch of amateur art fan boys, in retreat from a marketplace for which they are ill equipped, will gladly take your money so they can eat. Here's the brochure."kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-63928049148237917922009-08-19T02:55:52.153-04:002009-08-19T02:55:52.153-04:00"And you are VERY WRONG about Hegel being irr..."And you are VERY WRONG about Hegel being irrelevant for painting"<br /><br />Hegel's 'dynamic figure drawing' was always out on loan when i was at art college. and i bet you've just stolen whole passages from his 'abstract colour composition' series, you big cheat.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-14149820263882280912009-08-19T02:44:30.828-04:002009-08-19T02:44:30.828-04:00Rob Howard: "Some levels of taste are regiona...Rob Howard: "Some levels of taste are regional, some are universal. Countries with gamelan music also have western-style symphony orchestras. Those symphony archestras are universal accross the world. Gamelan orchestras are not."<br /><br />But the world becomes just as regional in the context of the totality of existence, so your universality is merely a pipe dream after all.theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-18168344058805613222009-08-19T02:43:33.701-04:002009-08-19T02:43:33.701-04:00David Apatoff: "You, on the other hand, assum...David Apatoff: "You, on the other hand, assume that you or anything else in the whole blinkin' world really exist. You certainly can't prove that"<br /><br />That is the easiest thing in the world to prove and without resorting to assumptions. If I define "exist" as "to appear" then it's blatantly obvious to me and any sane person that I or any other object exists. But the real question is what you mean by "really exist". People who use your argument are always conveniently vague on what it means to "really exist". By not really defining that, you trick yourselves into thinking you have a coherent argument. I don't know if you're a religious person, but Christians and other religious wackos use the same strategy when they try to show that their God "really exists".<br /><br />"Perhaps we are all shadows on the wall of Plato's cave."<br /><br />If we appear to ourselves as being shadows on the wall of Plato's cave then we exist as shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. What has more existence than what appears to us? What would it mean to exist in a way that is more than just appearance?<br /><br />"If you and I don't have at least some common frame of reference, some shared perceptions, some agreed upon standards, then how am I any different to you from a rock or a tree?"<br /><br />Why do you want to be different from a rock or a tree? A person, a rock or a tree can be crushed out of existence at any time and the Universe will go on fine without any of them. It doesn't matter if they shared any perceptions or not. It looks like you're using standards in art as some kind of religious dogma to unite people. That's not quite as offensive and ridiculous as being a religious nut but it still has no validity at all.<br /><br />"So a philosophy that starts out with the intention of creating the widest possible zone of freedom for human creativity becomes the ultimate dehumanizing philosophy"<br /><br />This is nonsense. First of all, no one is going to take advantage of the widest possible zone of freedom. An artist always sets an arbitrary limit on himself when creating a work whether he realizes it or not. It's impossible to fit all potential choices you could make into a work of art simply because the choices are infinite. The best you could do is have a constantly evolving "unfinishable" work of art and if that is considered art then everything can be considered art, which makes the term "art" meaningless. Secondly, since no one can take advantage of the widest possible zone of freedom there will naturally be artists who set similar limitations on themselves and share some kind of standard. This always happens anyway, artists form communities and alliances and they don't really care about anything that contradicts their agreed upon standards. Many times they aren't even aware that they share a particular standard, it's just part of their natural way of getting along with others. There is no evidence that accepting the truth of the subjectivity of taste leads to a dehumanizing philosophy. In fact, believing in universal standards of taste is dehumanizing because it is irrational and dogmatic. <br /><br />"I think that's a compromise that most people who choose to pass judgment on art must ultimately make."<br /><br />I don't try to prove that anyone's art is bad so I don't need to make that compromise. I either like something or I don't and that's as far as my judgment goes. Why would I feel compelled to be able to prove to someone else that they should share the same taste as me? That's ridiculous. Someone who does that appears to need validation for their personal taste; the art alone is not enough for them. Not that art should ever be "enough" but I suggest looking elsewhere for whatever it is you feel you lack and quit dirtying the pool with your dogmatic assertions and compromises. Why do you need to believe that something outside of you will validate your personal opinions on good and bad? That's a really immature mentality to have.theory_of_mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330560294467684481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-62578869221271778052009-08-18T20:47:12.197-04:002009-08-18T20:47:12.197-04:00Laurence, that WAS my opinion, which took me a hel...Laurence, that WAS my opinion, which took me a hell of a lot of personal research time to get to. You just didn't understand HOW it was my opinion because you aren't familiar with the topic. <br /><br />And you are VERY WRONG about Hegel being irrelevant for painting. <br /><br />Again, you are assuming because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON, THAT THERE IS NOTHING GOING ON.<br /><br />Point. Blank. Wrong. <br /><br />Now please stop trying to control my conversation to suit you. Its really annoying.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-26488413136999569232009-08-18T17:11:32.693-04:002009-08-18T17:11:32.693-04:00kev, your comments are much more interesting when ...kev, your comments are much more interesting when you leave out the references to philosophers and give voice to your OWN opinions. i'm not insecure about it, i just don't view art as an academic subject. reading Hegel won't help you paint any better.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.com