The telos of art has been lost, and for this reason--the loss of purpose--we also find it impossible to define art. On reflection, does "art for the sake of art" really satisfy anyone? It is cant, it is bullshit, it is nauseating.
-
Show this thread
-
Indeed the attempt by art at self-justification is worn so thin that most do not bother to invoke it. If art exists only for the sake of art, then let us consign it to hell and be done with it. For that which is purposeless is meaningless.
3 replies 2 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
To reveal the true meaning of art we look to what is hidden: certain statues of gods are accessible only to the priest in the cella; certain Madonnas remain covered nearly all year round; certain sculptures on medieval cathedrals are invisible to the spectator on ground level
1 reply 1 retweet 33 likesShow this thread -
The earliest works of art were intended for use in magical and religious rituals, ceremonial objects which were designed as much for presentation to the spirit world as for display to one’s fellows.
1 reply 2 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
The key, what distinguishes mere production and representation from art properly conceived is that it must be address both god and man, in that order.
1 reply 2 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
The meaning and essence of a work of art is inextricable from its context in a living tradition; to the Greeks an ancient statue of Venus was an object of veneration; to the clerics of the Middle Ages it was an ominous idol, to us it's an historical curiosity
2 replies 1 retweet 22 likesShow this thread
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.