Re: [SCA-JML] Digest Number 563
> From: Elaine Koogler <ekoogler@...>At least one Shogun swapped his later edition for an original! See "The
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Too un-period?
> I suspect that this was an outgrowth of the fact that the Japanese imported
> Chinese culture wholesale during various periods of their history. The
> concept of learning by copying the masters was very important in China...to
> the point that they published "The Mustard Seed Garden Manual of Painting" in
> the 16th century, which contained examples of work by the various masters of
> different items (grasses, bamboo, etc.) for the student to copy.
Art of Sumi-E by Shozo Sato". This is post Sengoku though, I believe the
correct date is 1679. However there are examples of earlier Chinese
works brought over in various collections.
> From: mneumark@...It's only been in the last 100 years or so that Western painting stopped
> It's extremely common in europe as well to "copy the masters." In
> fact, to this day they still make us pee on art students copy
> Michaelangelo and Carvaggio...all those o artists. I've personally
> found it very helpful. :)
doing this to a lesser degree. Note that in some arts like photography,
this is still considered good practice for students. It's also the
reason we get modern art garbage like gray squares and piles of
newspapers. The only art involved in that is the art of the confidence
> It's only been in the last 100 years or so that Western painting stoppedWe're drifting off-topic, but I'll throw in my standard 'what is art?'
> doing this to a lesser degree. Note that in some arts like photography,
> this is still considered good practice for students. It's also the
> reason we get modern art garbage like gray squares and piles of
> newspapers. The only art involved in that is the art of the confidence
> Jim Eckman
comments any way...
I disagree with those who say 'such-and-such is not art'. Sure it is.
Anything someone calls art is art. It's a big category. But there are
sub-sets (remember set theory from school?) - successful art and good
art. They are both part of 'art'. They overlap, but one does not
entirely contain the other. For example, if I pile up newspapers and
call it art, it's art. If I sell it for several thousand dollars it is
successful art. It's probably not /good/ art (but that's more the
purview of art critics and time). On the other hand, many of the
acknowledged masters died unappreciated and paupers. Theirs was good
art, but not successful art (at least not successful to them).
Art truly is in the eye of the beholder - and the creator.
>reason we get modern art garbage like gray squares and piles ofas a confidence man myself, i take great offense...:)
>newspapers. The only art involved in that is the art of the confidence
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp