Interesting interview. Makes me wonder: How about the requirement if art moves us or not? That we are emotionally touched by it? This is off course an irrational and completely subjective standard, but is that a problem? Wasn't Kant moved by the rose? Things that deeply touch the soul or emerge from the soul can hardly be rationalised and standardised. As Cornelis points out, context changes. Being in touch with the soul brings us to inner authority, whether we understand it or not. These experiences can either be hardly expressed by words or they become very simple and clear insights. Couldn't this be an essential component of the quality of art? It immediately implies the involvement of people. It's people who create and appreciate art.
Interesting interview. Makes me wonder: How about the requirement if art moves us or not? That we are emotionally touched by it?
This is off course an irrational and completely subjective standard, but is that a problem? Wasn't Kant moved by the rose?
Things that deeply touch the soul or emerge from the soul can hardly be rationalised and standardised. As Cornelis points out, context changes. Being in touch with the soul brings us to inner authority, whether we understand it or not. These experiences can either be hardly expressed by words or they become very simple and clear insights. Couldn't this be an essential component of the quality of art? It immediately implies the involvement of people. It's people who create and appreciate art.