Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwvcom> wrote in message
<376bfb14.137887608@news.povray.org>...
>On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:00:42 -0400, TonyB
><ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:
>
>A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
>he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
>considered "beautiful" in appearance. There are serious works of art
>that contain important and valuable messages. Not all of these are
>pretty to look at, listen to, or experience (depending on the relevant
>media involved.) To blindly chose beautiful art as the only truly
>valuable art is shortsighted at best. I hope the Pope doesn't really
>feel that way.
>


This is what I also noticed - the Pope seems to be addressing 'creators of
beauty'. While the definitive measure of 'art' or 'beauty' is beyond my
grasp, I have a few convictions in this matter. All creators of beauty may
be artists, but not all artists need create beauty. Art is a much wider
medium.
In my opinion, any creation that evokes emotion may be called art. The
emotion may be admiration, hate, anger. It does not matter. Only when his
work is met with indifference has the creator truly failed. One may question
the ethical value of an artwork but that, I feel, is completely separate
from its artistic value. It is only because of the dogma of beauty that
people tend to confine the boundaries of art.

Not that I'd think advocating beauty isn't a good and noble thing. Nor would
I think the Pope is unaware of the wider sense of art. It's just that some
of the quotes seem a bit biased. Others I strongly agree with.

Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards. You
can only express your thoughts. That's what I see in these extracts, and I
thank TonyB for sharing them with us.

Margus

Post a reply to this message