[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Book Art Criticism: New Thoughts

Bertha, et al.

>   Almost everything the Native Americans made was for a purpose.

Everything is made for a purpose. By everyone. Even nihilistic destruction
is a purpose. Dadaist insults are for a purpose. Furbies are made for a
purpose. So, too, the exaltation of blood sacrifices on the pre-Columbian
continent. Or propitiations for a good harvest.

>   The Quakers made the most stunning furniture and objects, all for
>   utile reasons.  The Amish women quilters made quilts to be used
>   yet they put the color field artists to shame.  Where/who/how the
>   artist is/does should not be a factor. Is the art "true" to its
>   materials, its text?

Elaborate on those quotation marks around "true", please.

>   Does it show/tell the artist's truth?

How can you tell that?

>   Does the
>   artist know how to exploit his/her materials; is he/she comfortable
>   with the materials and tools?

Again, how can you tell that?

>   And, if the artist uses text, aside
>   from the obvious fact that the words should be well written,
>   cohesive, coherent, etc., does the artist bother to spell the words
>   right, know grammar and the rules of punctuation?

Is the design and production artist responsible for the writing and
authoring artist's spelling and grammar? Hmmm. Am I my brother's
grammarian? Maybe the author knows something I don't? Whose truth of
grammar prevails?

Michael Brady
16 Pedestal Rock Lane
Durham, NC 27712
Voice  919 471 9554    fax 919 962 2707
jbrady@email.unc.edu   http://www.unc.edu/~jbrady/index.html

            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]