Re: What is art? and another response

[Michael-Patrick <M-P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Neil Koven wrote:
>Yes, and more.  It is an extension of emotion and inner feeling into the
>physical realm as a manifestation of that emotion and inner feeling.
>Without art we are no better than the beasts of the field.  It's a >metaphor
>for wearing our heart on our sleeve.

Well, Neil, I went to your home page and had a gander at some of you
photo work.  Now I understand a great deal more about you.  Art is a
communicator.  If you want to communicate emotion it can do it if you
find the right audience for your work especially.  Not every one will
"get it" though.  You know this I am sure.  Your work reminds me of the
19th century pictorialists work, Emerson, was it? (Not Ralph Waldo.) You
are definitly a romantic and from a different age.

Do you know the work of Louis Baltz?  He has been called (I believe) a
"new landscape" photographer and is a very educated intellectual.  He is
broadly collected internationally and lectures regularly.  When asked
how one of his photographs made him feel he responded "Feel? I don't
feel anything, if a photograph made me feel something I would throw-up."

The point is not everyone is interested in emotion, especially today. 
In art schools today you will find a lot of artists who think art is
about ideas and concepts and may or may not have anything what so ever
to do with feelings.  Personally I am not that kind of artist.  Though I
try to dig into my subjects darker side, their desires and fantasies.  I
definitly want people to feel something, though I want them to think
about that feeling too, to analyse themselves and their own desires.

But I appreciate all kinds of art and love the "inner world" I inhabit
when I find a piece that takes me their.

more on art
michael-patrick

------------------------------

Topic No. 25