Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
Excellent question Alan, and my answer would be yes and no. Some criteria would remain the same, mostly, does the work "move" me. Art is not merely a technical contrivance. How a work makes me feel and think is as important as the level of technical excellence with which it is crafted. However, for the most part the criteria for technical execution alone would indeed be very different between, say, a 15th century master work and that of one of the master impressionists of the 19th century.
|
Agreed. However this is somewhat contradictory what comes to the level of technical execution as many times guys in the old days did unbelievable works of art that can hardly be copied nowadays despite the excellence in technical ability. Appears to me that
what can be achieved nowadays in many occasions is being less well done - the
how - than what was done in the old days with lesser capable tool etc. Knowing the limitations of technology used on sculpting, forging etc something on a given time gives a more well-rounded base to form opinion on whether something is "good, bad or ugly". Of course this does not necessarily make how something appears personally to someones taste any different. Or something. Sorry. Rambling here. Must be the long day and red wine I opened a while ago
Thanks,
J.