Reply to a Philosopher

Standard

In response to Ken Vallario‘s “The Frame Problem”. View it and then read the text here:

I just spent what man might consider a religious experience in nature.

Nature.. the most beautiful, chaotic, symmetrical, geometrical, powerful work of art to ever exist. The source that inspires art, and yet, never once did I see nature confined or framed, outside of the names and classifications that man has given to it.

Once again, a fellow philosopher and friend has identified for me another cultural trap of hidden symbolic dualities in the “frame”… a further representation of how man conformed to one standard of presenting his work – detached; the frame representing borders, like those invisible lines in the sand separating nations.

It is herein that the idea is challenged, or perhaps asked, as to how deep it may run, of just how unaware we might be of how extreme our conditioning goes or how far our allegiance with our standards and beliefs have gone.

It wasn’t taking authorship… framing… defining… separating… labeling… differentiating, that sides were created to defend. The need to be a critic, automatically predisposes us to be forced to think about what we are feeling about what we are seeing, and then taking that feeling and translating it into the limiting confines of a manmade medium to define something that is define-less… frameless… : ART.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s