Re: Great speech video on "Sound"

["Mark Showalter" <folkstone57@operamail.com>]

> > 
> >     Per Boysen wrote:
> >
> >          even if no one understands a piece of art
> >         it still is art.
> andy butler <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk <mailto:akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>> 
>wrote:>
> >     give an example
> 
> mark francombe wrote:
> > ha ha.. surely almost any piece of Art is not truly 
> > understandable... at least not in a complete transference of 
> > meaning from the Artist to the Viewer.
> 
This seems to me to be a counsel of despair. Also, what does "truely 
understandble" mean in this context? For instance, how long do we get to 
try to understand a work of art before we either get it or don't? I also 
think this would be like saying:
I have a 2 gallon pitcher & only 3 glasses, so the pitcher will never be 
empty.
Well, clearly that is not the case. Drink the 3 glasses then refill them! 
Art functions in the same way, although I'm not even sure if we ever 
truely understand or take our fill, not because we can't do so but because 
we can always go back to the glass for more. 

-- 
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com