Escher

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, should OL ever go out of existence (and there are NO plans for that in the works), there will be a provision for the archives to be easily available on the Internet in perpetuity.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

You guys should learn some posting etiquette: do not quote complete posts (unless they are very short)!! There are few things I find as irritating as a long series of nested quotes (now 7 levels!) followed by a few new lines. This is just laziness and a huge waste of bandwidth.

But I thought it was art. :frantics:

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

But I thought it was art. :frantics:

But it is art that reflects a malevolent sense of life.

[Roger Bissell]

But I thought it was art. :frantics:

But it is art that reflects a malevolent sense of life. :devil:

Not really, Dragonfly. As we all know, knowledge is hierarchical, as is the structure of all living organisms, and even molecular, atomic, and subatomic structure in inanimate nature. The hierarchical structure of the artwork that Brant and I collaborated in was clearly a reflection, a "re-creation" in the naive, traditional sense of the term, of that all-pervasive hierarchical structure in the world. In the little microcosm of our interaction, we made another world that embodied a significant aspect of this world.

And if we ever get bored, we can instead make our artwork reflect the "tabula rasa" view of human consciousness. :poke:

I like to think of OL as the Dance of Objectivism. :hyper: :frantics: :hyper: :frantics: :hyper: :frantics: :hyper:

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I like to think of OL as the Dance of Objectivism. :hyper: :frantics: :hyper: :frantics: :hyper: :frantics: :hyper:

Roger,

How I love high art! That was pure genius!

Michael

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Re your post #1's question "Do you consider the visual works of Mortiz Escher art...?" Yes.

--- Many of Maurits' (however spelled) 'works' are clearly fantasy-oriented; indeed, several to the point of apparent, almost self-defined, impossibilty in their 'representationalism'. They are, as all things worth calling 'art', inherently made for...pure contemplation (or, as I would put it: 'thought-provokingness'.)

~ However, his noted engravings ('woodcuts') showed little diff from already noteworthy optical-illusion drawings. He clearly liked to 'represent' little more than how he could 'play' with...perceptions-in/of-drawing/sketching/woodcutting; rather than USE such 'play' in actually (re)presenting anything. His 'art' is little more than...artistic exercises. He had an artist's view of perceiving-things-differently...but no artist's vision of seeing them...differently.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ As far as the idea of 're'-creation of 'reality' goes, Escher's is NOT that. His chronic subject preferences show an attempt at (re?)presenting a CREATION of his preferred 'reality': one which throws any rational understanding of 'reality' into logical/rationally-perceived chaos.

~ This is not to say that one can not learn from 'chaos'; only that learning from such was not his point in this madness-filled universe he loved to dwell in.

~ I see him as Rand saw Dostoevsky: a knowledgeable guide in a hell-oriented universe (akin to Dali); one who could show 'thought-provoking' things...in a place no rational person would wish to live, indeed, would even want to stay for long, within. Can one say: a sick Metaphysics?

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ 'Fascinating' his places are, no argument...until one finds that one is caught in an Ouroborosian spiral (like: Twilight Zone) where one can lose sight of the fact that where this artist directs one's attention (and, that's an artist's main concern, no? ) is...back to the beginning...to start over in the 'wonderment' of, in Escher's art, nothing other than...getting lost.

~ No wonder mathematicians find his 2-D presentations of 3-D geometry-contradictions interesting.

~ My criticisms nwst, none of this should be regarded as taking away from his 'artistry': an artist he was...but...an Artist he wasn't. -- He 'played with', rather than 'showed about.'

LLAP

J:D