tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2284837106090895124.post5666445487240840156..comments2024-02-23T00:36:49.934-08:00Comments on Throughlines: Natural SelectionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2284837106090895124.post-3839346640234775492007-01-02T12:06:00.000-08:002007-01-02T12:06:00.000-08:00Thanks for your comment. I started a response here...Thanks for your comment. I started a response here and it got long enough that I put it up as the January 2 post, "Another Way." <br /><br />- BBruce Schaublehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11663735635816558661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2284837106090895124.post-9732277454137793172007-01-01T15:56:00.000-08:002007-01-01T15:56:00.000-08:00Have you ever heard of Wabi Sabi? If not, I highly...Have you ever heard of Wabi Sabi? If not, I highly recommend picking up a book about it. Wabi Sabi is sort of an asthetic appretiation for change, and the incomplete/imperfect (sometimes conventionally called "ugly"). Most of the things that we see in our everyday life would be considered wabi sabi (i.e. run down houses). This term can be used to describe art, or archetecture, or nature, or change, or whatever really. <br /><br />And about your blog: If you do indeed think that a piece of "art" (something that is questionably artistic, like that students drawing) is truly a piece of art, then does the credit go to you (for interpreting it), or the artist (for creating something with the potential for interpretation, even though they didn't mean for it to be)? Because what if the artist really did just slop a whole bunch of words/images together. If that's true (if the artist just randomly created the piece) do you think you would be considered a fool, or an intellectual for considering it true art?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com