Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans

Re: Picasso

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
John & Sandra Barrick (astroboy)
Tue, 06 Oct 1998 18:26:56 -0400

Robert, what I don't understand is why ask a question and instead of
accepting the differences in our opinion you feel you have to
scrutinize what we are implying! You ask what is art? To us, I
imagine, not to you. Right? You are doing it here with Jill and you
just did it with me and O'keefe. We can and should have differences
in opinions!

Robert Nickelson wrote:
> If that were the simple truth about Picasso's artworks that we are
> just over exposed to it -- then why do some styles never seem
> over exposed and why do we -- consider some artworks masterworks?
> Picasso's works maybe need to be looked at as we look at symbols --
> what we call art seems to become meaningfully appreciated as it moves
> to a symbol. Read Townsend's An Introduction to Aesthetics -- Or
> George Dickie's theories on Anti-Anti-essentialism -- art is defined
> by the artworld, when it is meaningfully appreciated. Some of
> Picasso's works bring tears to my eyes -- a mother and child painting
> at the Art Institute of Chicago -- a large work -- with a large woman
> and baby -- but it is very moving -- it becomes a symbol to me. I
> don't think I will ever get to the point where I am over exposed to
> that deep of a feeling for as long as I live.
> Bob