The two sentences are contradictory only when taken out of context, as you have done here. My original post suggested that there is spectrum of art, ranging from the personal, to the culturally exclusive, to the universal. Before one can conclude that a specific work is indeed both great and universal, it must past the test of time. Culturally specific art, on the other hand, is significant in a specific time and place. it is the art of the moment. Paul
> Paul wrote: > >Different cultures are moved by different words, different > >pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time > > Isn't this self contradicting? > I agree with the first sentence. Not the second. > If cultures come and go, so does the art works of these cultures. Diffent > cultures will have different artistic values. > To some extend at least. > > I agree that some art works may have universal value. To humans, anyway :-). > > > > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 6. maj 2005 14:06 > Til: [email protected] > Emne: Re: what makes a photograph art... > > > That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works > hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. > It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or > straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between > personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it > is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, > it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other > layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different > pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work > endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great > art: a classic. > Paul > On May 6, 2005, at 7:34 AM, Tom Reese wrote: > > > Background: I bought Bill Fortney's "Great Photography Workshop" book > > a while back. In the book, Bill recommended another one called > > "Developing The Creative Edge in Photography" by Bert Eifer. That > > book contains some interesting (to me at least) thoughts on what makes > > a photograph 'art.' These definitions are compiled by Mr. Eifer and > > are not necessarily his. These are some of the definitions: > > > > art pleases the eye > > > > art brings order to chaos - it creates harmony > > > > art clarifies, intensifies or enlarges our experience of life > > > > art has mystery, ambiguity and contradiction > > > > I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group on these > > definitions. Do you disagree with any of them? > > > > Tom Reese > > > > > >
