[NetBehaviour] (no subject)
sondheim at panix.com
Mon Jul 18 18:43:46 CEST 2005
Yes, I agree with you. Oddly, I just finished a biography of David Bohm (I
have had odd resonances with him); he's one of the few physicists who did
find intrinsic value in art...
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:39:20 +0100
> From: Ken Turner <ken at sqallp.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] State of new media from strawberry fields
> forever -
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity
> <netbehaviour at netbehaviour.org>
> Message-ID: <8c513fa05630a00328c00ed1e7289918 at sqallp.freeserve.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed
> What you're saying is, shall we say partly true and well said.
> What anyone says is normally partly true.
> but is truth the question?
> Nietzsche was perhaps only partly true concerning nihilism and the
> But what is there after the abyss?
> My understanding is that art is not what appears on the surface, its
> physical optical form is not a representation of art.
> It is more than that. That sounds like a cliche, but read on.
> And of course both philosophy and art do not, in themselves, move on.
> they only repeat the impossibility of being able to express what it is
> to be human.
> But in trying there is some achievement 'in depth' whether in Rembrandt
> or Cezanne, Kandinsky or Brecht or Beckett, to name a few.
> Something in this relates to our indentity and place.
> To paraphrase Merleau Ponty, three dimensions only make sense when all
> three are rolled into the one of 'depth'.
> Hermes Trismegistus said it is the "inarticulate cry".
More information about the NetBehaviour