View Single Post
October 26th, 2008, 19:53
I don't think sophistication or beautiful mean art nor the reverse. The example you quoted are interesting. If you look at the Bauhaus page, in right bottom there is this building:
I feel that totally ugly but there's eventually more art effort put in this than in the other buildings you quoted. I wonder what the architect wanted to signify but there's certainly something strong here.
Still about simplicity vs art, it's like when Europe discovered or rediscovered the extreme simplicity of some Japan graphical art. At same time Europe had reach an extreme sophistication in graphical art.
I don't mean I disagree with the point of view you developed but I'm not sure that the Bauhaus architecture is a good sample to illustrate it. Instead just take a picture of one of the numerous anonymous building with no style that invade cities.
I agree that time is certainly a factor but that it's money that is the key. Time is a factor mainly because more time means more money. It's probably the topic of the
Michael Ende book you quoted. I haven't read it, from the same author I started read the Neverending Story but never finished it, I have only seen the movie from this book.
About Art and elite I don't think the past was more glorious about that. Eventually art in past was much more for the elite only. Ok through architecture and some other public stuff like statues, some art was less for an elite only. But I don't think past was so much more shiny. I see regularly example of cities or even small town investing in public art like statues, wall painting or other stuff like that. I don't necessary find that beautiful but often it's hard to deny it's art.
Perhaps we need just beauty but no art? Even then beauty is a relative value. For example the Pyramid in the Louvre, some people find that nice and fitting well the whole, some other don't.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Dasale
Find More Posts by Dasale