I was brainstorming further on this idea of Art as Adaptation (i.e. Art ex mundi?) vis-a-vis Art as Creation (i.e., Art ex nihilo). The following is a basic outline of the logic I'm toying with. This is just an idea I'm exploring rather than a dogma I believe in. I'm sure there is fallacy in one or more of these points, and I'd love your insight as to how I could polish this up (or flush it down the artistic Toilet…lol).
Logic: Human Art as Adaptation
1. IF our Art can be described as the creative expression in aesthetic form of what "Is"
2. IF what "Is" can be described as the Creator and His created order including all its physical, metaphysical, and historical-sociological manifestations.
3. IF the created order can be described as the Creator's Art.
4. IF "adaptation" can be described as a rewrite or reworking of a piece of art for another medium.
5. THEN all art is essentially an *attempted adaptation, parody, or satire of the Creator's art.
*Modifier "attempted" because human art is that artist's understanding of what Is, which is not always accurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment