Re: Engineering / Arts

Sandor Mathe (sandor.mathe@prior.ca)
Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:12:08 -0500

Larry Bullis <kingfisher@halcyon.com> wrote:
> >Additionally, mastering technical competence in a given area does
> >not automatically qualify one as an artist.
>
> It qualifies one as a technician. That's different but not necessarily
> exclusive. There has been a lot of techno bashing in the art sectors
> over the last twenty some years. Too bad. It's wrong. But it is
> absolutely right that technique does not an artist make.

I'd go farther than "not necessarily exclusive" and say that
mastering technical competence is a pre-requisite to becoming an
artist. I think techinical competence is the easier part to aquire.

Of course you can luck out and get the technique correct, but not
consistently (an generally dull but expert technician can also "luck
out" and have a superb artistic inspiration).

A masterful artistic vision that is marred by terrible technique is a
real shame in my opinion. Remeber the Cartier-Bresson thread (was
that here or in rec.photo somewhere?) that discussed whether that was
the case or not.

Sandor Mathe -- sandor.mathe@prior.ca
(905) 670-1225 x333 -- FAX (905) 670-1344