On 2 Apr 2004 at 12:16, Christina Fletcher wrote:
> I doubt there's any 'of course' about anything and certainly wouldn't
> say making art (whatever art is) is unnatural.<
This seems to be a matter of connotation: you seem to think of
"artificial" as "unnatural" in the sense of "unnatural acts", in the
sense of something prima facie bad, because you've now substituted
"unnatural" for "artificial". That's a pretty significant
substitution, it seems to me.
But I don't mean "artificial" in any such sense -- but rather in the
sense that it is "human-made" as opposed to "found in nature".
> ... The closest I can come to any coherent
> thought in this context is that sometimes something I make feels more
> spontaneous and less hampered by either ideas or technique. That's not
> to say that technique and experience weren't the basis for the
> relative spontaneity: think it's most likely that they were.<
Perhaps those events were when you were practiced enough with your
techniques and ideas that the experience does indeed feel "more
spontaneous"; but "spontaneous", too, is different from "unnatural"
or "natural". Again, changing the terms without giving more of a hint
about what you mean by the changed terms other than the mere change
of terms could be significant.
> I don't
> find definitions particularly helpful but that's a personal thing. It
> doesn't really matter to me what art is or isn't: it's simply a
> journey I want to make without having a predetermined destination.
ok -- never mind, then.
|