Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
What is the Philosophy of Art?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tuur" data-source="post: 77656551" data-attributes="member: 445885"><p>Um...have just started Bell's <em>Art,</em> and suspected from the introduction that we may be at odds and had the suspicions confirmed in the first pages of the first chapter. Bell doesn't seem to have thought aesthetics could apply to a handsaw, yet this is readily apparent in that thing known as style. From what he wrote about handsaws, I wonder if he would have thought a fossilized shell left on the center of a hand ax displayed aesthetics or if he would have dismissed it out of hand. I suspect Bell wouldn't have thought much of my opinion, just as I suspect he didn't have much experience using handsaws.</p><p></p><p>Ironically, in Bell's time there was a period of ornate design in the most basic things, from tools to pully wheels. In some cases the ornamentation got in the way of the function. This gets into ergonomics, but be that as it may, it was something that existed during his lifetime.</p><p></p><p>I'll continue to read the book. It won't be the first time I've read a book I disagreed with, and I'm well aware that Bell was an authority in the field, but his view seems unduly restrictive. And this is from a fellow who knows his artwork is mostly "mechanical," because that's part and parcel of drafting and mapping, and it carried over into a couple of book covers I did. I don't argue in favor of it outside of drafting and mapping; I just know that's a failing of my artwork.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tuur, post: 77656551, member: 445885"] Um...have just started Bell's [I]Art,[/I] and suspected from the introduction that we may be at odds and had the suspicions confirmed in the first pages of the first chapter. Bell doesn't seem to have thought aesthetics could apply to a handsaw, yet this is readily apparent in that thing known as style. From what he wrote about handsaws, I wonder if he would have thought a fossilized shell left on the center of a hand ax displayed aesthetics or if he would have dismissed it out of hand. I suspect Bell wouldn't have thought much of my opinion, just as I suspect he didn't have much experience using handsaws. Ironically, in Bell's time there was a period of ornate design in the most basic things, from tools to pully wheels. In some cases the ornamentation got in the way of the function. This gets into ergonomics, but be that as it may, it was something that existed during his lifetime. I'll continue to read the book. It won't be the first time I've read a book I disagreed with, and I'm well aware that Bell was an authority in the field, but his view seems unduly restrictive. And this is from a fellow who knows his artwork is mostly "mechanical," because that's part and parcel of drafting and mapping, and it carried over into a couple of book covers I did. I don't argue in favor of it outside of drafting and mapping; I just know that's a failing of my artwork. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
What is the Philosophy of Art?
Top
Bottom