aesthetics

["Bill Urmenyi" <bill@zzzzzzzzzzzzz>]

So far all the people who have entered into this discussion are practicing
artists. I do confess to also being a tutor in fine art sculpture at the two
best, world renowned, art schools in the country. However I did not start my
degree in art till I was 50, so I come from a background of having both feet
firmly on the ground.

There seems to be a body of opinion that suggests that talking about art is
hogwash and that people not trained in art are excluded from appreciating
anything other than beauty whilst at the same time referring to works which
in their day were very poorly thought of and definitely not thought
beautiful. If you want to be satisfied with beauty alone, that's fine but
wouldn't it be better if the same works also stimulated the mind, left you
seeing things in a new way, made you think about things (Guernica for
example)? As for abstract, the only two examples of art I have referred to
have been a real urinal and a real bed. These are the real objects not
someone's attempt at copying real ones and certainly not abstract.

Artists have always looked for new ways of making art. The general public
generally don't like the work they make for the next hundred years or so and
then they start liking it. History continues to repeat itself.

Anyway good luck to all of you
Bill Urmenyi