I told you. I've never really had the chance to speak with a purveyor of the painted arts. While I consider myself an adept student of the written word, there is something quite interesting about one who can look past that and see more than the eyes of a mere man.
Perhaps, it was wrong to start with such a crude examination. But it was with great sincerity that I entreated you.
If you are aware of the importance of the written word you should also be aware of the history behind what you write by extension. In which case, you should automatically know to apply it to other forms of art you choose to study or show interest in.
[Answering that first question about half an hour later.]
I am a journalist, not the writer that creates worlds out of his own head. I may spin tales, and weave a compelling narrative. But the words and the thoughts are not wholly mine.
I hope that will disabuse you of the notion that my interest in your opinions is insincere. I am, simply, nothing if I do not have a foil to react to.
From the loss of the original image, faded as it was? Art is... individual. It means something unique to each person who views it. What I feel was lost may not be what the woman who repainted it felt was lost.
I feel that her intentions were good, and honest. However perhaps to the people who viewed Ecce Homo each time they visited the church, it would be the equivalent of allowing somebody to storm the Louvre and repaint the Mona Lisa because they felt her enigmatic smile needed restoration.
That was a surprisingly sincere statement. I'd half expected you would argue more about whether the question was a legitimate one. But, it was a pleasant surprise.
Based on the reporting, I believe your last statement is likely the best analogy for this situation. Strange, what can happen when people with good intentions reach for something beyond their skill.
Still, good intentions to not make up for the loss of historically significant artwork. Art restoration is certainly possible, thank goodness, but it always sad to hear that it has been necessary to rescue a significant piece.
There is more to the intricacies and politics of the art world than just entitled artists arguing over who gets to paint with the blackest-black or the pinkest-pink.
I would argue otherwise. But I have been told recently that I should look into the music world alongside the more literal "artistic" world, so yes. Consider me interested.
Oh, the cultural exchange... he did mention something about looking out for musicals. I suppose I should keep an eye out for some interesting exhibitions to keep my side of the deal.
Edited (one day i'll stop mucking up) 2017-10-03 19:12 (UTC)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fabrefactions) wrote2017-08-26 12:53 pm
3/3
no subject
no subject
[1 attached image]
no subject
What exactly is the purpose of this exercise?
no subject
Perhaps, it was wrong to start with such a crude examination. But it was with great sincerity that I entreated you.
no subject
[Answering that first question about half an hour later.]
no subject
I hope that will disabuse you of the notion that my interest in your opinions is insincere. I am, simply, nothing if I do not have a foil to react to.
no subject
That first painting and its historical and religious significance was rather extensively covered by news sites, you are aware?
no subject
What do you feel the value that was lost? Not from a historical perspective. But from your own.
no subject
Art is... individual. It means something unique to each person who views it. What I feel was lost may not be what the woman who repainted it felt was lost.
I feel that her intentions were good, and honest. However perhaps to the people who viewed Ecce Homo each time they visited the church, it would be the equivalent of allowing somebody to storm the Louvre and repaint the Mona Lisa because they felt her enigmatic smile needed restoration.
no subject
Based on the reporting, I believe your last statement is likely the best analogy for this situation. Strange, what can happen when people with good intentions reach for something beyond their skill.
But, I suppose, better good than malevolent.
1/2
2/2
How presumptuous of you.
Still, good intentions to not make up for the loss of historically significant artwork. Art restoration is certainly possible, thank goodness, but it always sad to hear that it has been necessary to rescue a significant piece.
no subject
Have I offended? My apologies.
But I do appreciate the commentary. I've never thought on it this much before. I've learned something, today.
no subject
There is more to the intricacies and politics of the art world than just entitled artists arguing over who gets to paint with the blackest-black or the pinkest-pink.
no subject
But I've learned to be aware of what I don't know. While it isn't always the case, often, I find something more interesting behind it.
Now, I've another proposition, should you be willing to continue listening.
no subject
[The other half is finishing the paper that is plaguing you and never having to think about it until grading comes back.]
... I'm reading, rather than listening, but by all means continue.
no subject
But there is a musical for which I've acquired tickets. Someone seems to think you would be a good person to ask to attend.
no subject
[He literally can't think of anyone...??]
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
[He doesn't see?? Why this?? but at least he's polite.]
Now you've been appropriately vague until the big reveal, will you tell me who suggested I should go?
no subject
no subject
Oh, the cultural exchange... he did mention something about looking out for musicals. I suppose I should keep an eye out for some interesting exhibitions to keep my side of the deal.
(no subject)
(no subject)