(Untitled)
Over at wurds someone brought up a 'movement' called Primitivism to counter that artists aren't needed and are in fact, inhibiting society's growth. How are they doing that? They exist.
( Now before my heads blows off, I'm going to try to, as nicely as I can, put forth a few things that these ppl should think about. )
( Now before my heads blows off, I'm going to try to, as nicely as I can, put forth a few things that these ppl should think about. )
Comments 1
During the first million or so years as reflective beings humans seem to have created no art. (Emphasis mine)
Because only permanent art counts. Permanent, as in something that'll last more than 30,000 years. Doodles in the mud? Pictures scratched onto bark? Nahhhhh.
And speaking of "language that divides" that article certainly counts. Other than the intro and the conclusion, it's incomprehensible drivel. (Not to mention his 'manifesto,' which is similarly incomprehensible. You'd think that someone looking to go back to simpler ways would say so - in a simpler way!)
when we really experiment with our hearts and hands the sphere of art is shown to be pitiable. In the transfiguration we must enact, the symbolic will be left behind and art refused in favor of the real. Play, creativity, self-expression and authentic experience will recommence at that moment.
Art inhibits self-expression? DOES NOT COMPUTE.
Reply
Leave a comment