"engage"(repost)
Meeseo Paik
..Kandinsky attempted to justify the change from representational to
abstract art -- from an art that engaged visible physical reality to one
that evoked invisible spiritual reality -- by comparing it to the change
in the scientific conception of matter, but he knew that the parallel
between the artistic and scientific revolutions could only be carried so
far. ..
Q: from an art that engaged
means...
1. promise?
2. draw?
3. attract:
4. fight?
(I can't find my question about "engage" on the list..so I post again
I am sorry for that)
Lars Eighner
and talented Meeseo Paik broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Donald Kuspit writes:
> ..Kandinsky attempted to justify the change from representational to
> abstract art -- from an art that engaged visible physical reality to one
> that evoked invisible spiritual reality -- by comparing it to the change
> in the scientific conception of matter, but he knew that the parallel
> between the artistic and scientific revolutions could only be carried so
> far. ..
> Q: from an art that engaged
> means...
> 1. promise?
> 2. draw?
> 3. attract:
> 4. fight?
None of the above. "Engaged" here means "interlocked with," "meshed
with." This sense of "engage" is often used to indicate that gears
are actually in contact with each other. Here it is used somewhat
figuratively to mean "closely associated with," "in contact with."
In all, "art that engaged visible physical reality," means art
depicting things as the eye sees them.
> (I can't find my question about "engage" on the list..so I post again
> I am sorry for that)
If the above is an examination question, you should find a better
instructor. If the four choices are all you can find in your
dictionary, you need a better dictionary. m-w.com may be useful to
you.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
If your eyes hurt after you drink coffee, you have to take the spoon
out of the cup. --Norm Crosby
panN...@musician.org
<in...@ppp.kornet21.net> wrote:
>Donald Kuspit writes:
>
> ..Kandinsky attempted to justify the change from representational to
>abstract art -- from an art that engaged visible physical reality to one
>that evoked invisible spiritual reality -- by comparing it to the change
>in the scientific conception of matter, but he knew that the parallel
>between the artistic and scientific revolutions could only be carried so
>far. ..
>
>Q: from an art that engaged
> means...
I'd say "represented," but "dealt with" might be closer to his
meaning.
> 1. promise?
> 2. draw?
> 3. attract:
> 4. fight?
No. None of those.
His point is that representational artists deal with physical reality
and try to represent it on canvas or in sculpture, albeit as part of
an abstract structure and a unique interpretation of whatever they
see. Completely abstract artists do not try to represent physical
reality, but paint or sculpt whatever expresses their inner feelings,
unmediated by the physical world as motif. I hasten to add that
neither is better or worse; these are merely differences between
degrees of abstraction.
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only, please!
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Donald Kuspit writes:
>
> ..Kandinsky attempted to justify the change from representational to
>abstract art -- from an art that engaged visible physical reality to one
>that evoked invisible spiritual reality -- by comparing it to the change
>in the scientific conception of matter, but he knew that the parallel
>between the artistic and scientific revolutions could only be carried so
>far. ..
>
>Q: from an art that engaged
> means...
> 1. promise?
> 2. draw?
> 3. attract:
> 4. fight?
Connect or interact with. It's used in a metaphorical sense, but one can see
the literal sense on which the metaphor is based in "he engaged first gear".
In a car this connects the power of the engine with the driving wheels through
the meshing of two cogs in the gearbox. An active connection is maintained,
just as there is between representational art and the physical objects
represented.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Richard Fontana
I would add that "completely abstract artists" do not necessarily express
any feelings in their art. (Nor, for that matter, does completely
representational art or art generally necessarily involve the expression
of feelings.)
panN...@musician.org
Fontana) wrote:
>I would add that "completely abstract artists" do not necessarily express
>any feelings in their art.
I agree. Much art is a contrivance designed merely to make money. My
interpretation of Kuspit's points should not be meant to imply that I
agree with them.
> (Nor, for that matter, does completely
>representational art or art generally necessarily involve the expression
>of feelings.)
It's arguable whether there's any such thing as "completely
representational" art. Certainly, all art (or virtually all art -
perhaps some exception could be found) has abstract elements to it,
e.g. in terms of structure, but I recognize that whether art with
abstract elements can at the same time be "completely
representational" is another issue.