tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17297246.post1998057046687111621..comments2023-05-15T20:07:28.355+12:00Comments on andrew killick (safe little world): truth, art, ugliness, cosmos and chaosandrew killickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17884776286603930618noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17297246.post-85810469482652207762013-04-01T14:40:27.247+13:002013-04-01T14:40:27.247+13:00As a footnote, sidenote, to this. The other aspect...As a footnote, sidenote, to this. The other aspect that is problematic about L'Engle's seemingly categorical statement is the issue of subjectivity. She later on demonstrates this subjectivity herself when, via a quote, she says that "Kandinsky ... is a real instance of divine transfiguration..." It is entirely possible that another viewer, when faced with a work by the man who is credited as being the first artist to achieve full abstraction, may see something less positive than "divine transfiguration" and possibly even meaninglessness and chaos. It's the meaning that the viewer sees that's the thing here. This is subjective. So what L'Engle might label non-art, might in fact spark all kinds of 'artness' for another viewer. Given the subjectiveness of art, it is best not of categorically write off anything. andrew killickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17884776286603930618noreply@blogger.com