it seems like the distinction between "representational" (or imitative) and "non-representational" art that arose after the invention of photography tended to lump all art from before this distinction arose into the "representational" category (with "new" art being distinguished, and seen as virtuous, as "non-representational"). but of course before this distinction was drawn there was no such taxonomy and artists wouldn't have conceptualized themselves as belonging to either category


@aparrish Good point, but I can think of an exception: artists in strict Islamic societies who would have assured you that their work (e.g. geometric, calligraphic) was non-representational.

@wrenpile oh wow yes, that is an excellent (and obvious in hindsight) counterexample. that opens a whole new line of thinking for me here, thank you!

@aparrish @wrenpile
Even though it was non-representational, it's still supposed to be symbolic of, like, the beauty of god's creation, right?

In other words, while representing living things is taboo, they're trying to represent the idea of the idea of the universe. An intentional simulacrum?

@enkiv2 @aparrish Makes sense to me, but I’m pretty shallow in this subject.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Follow friends and discover new ones. Publish anything you want: links, pictures, text, video. This server is run by the main developers of the Mastodon project. Everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!