Content deleted Content added
Deeceevoice (talk | contribs) →Questions: "the" |
Deeceevoice (talk | contribs) →Questions: "facial" |
||
Line 121:
:When I wrote the intro, I was (and still am) under some fairly tight deadlines. I had looked at two or three sources, had only one in front of me, and was working pretty much from memory regarding the rest. I think I've already said above (or in the voluminous discussion elsewhere on this piece) that the list is partial. Before I could return to it, it Zoe had deleted the article. That's why the list is partial. Also, the language used varies from list to list. If you'd like to add or otherwise modify the list (I think "self-composure" is better, because it's more general), then feel free.
:"Looking smart" and "luminosity of motion" are from Thompson, "of motion," because in that particular context Thompson was referring to movement (the work from which that information was taking being ''African Art in Motion'' in which, among other things, he comments on dance; however, he does also address "smoothness" in static art and clarity of form, as well. (In approaching this subject, one must be careful not to think in terms of only the static expressions, or plastic "art" in the Western sense, but of ''utilitarian'' art, which means it is, indeed, frequently in motion; it is danced -- like a mask, for example, or the dance itself. So, while a statue may be a still pose, certainly this would not be so in dance, or walking, or the process of sitting or standing. This subject, as the lead states, is also about comportment, human interaction, standards of beauty (in itself a complex thing encompasssing not just the physical), etc. What you're addressing is the fact that the list of attributes/concepts varies among authors somewhat in the way they are organized/grouped and named, which is to be expected. If you have a strong preference one way or the other, that's fine; I don't. The elements as listed aren't actually in conflict with one another. One more comment: the "of motion" can be omitted because, like "of the face," it is specific, rather than general. And the article really ''should'' go from the general to the specific. There's ample room to discuss that specific aspect of facial composure later on. Good looking out. [[User:Deeceevoice|deeceevoice]] 16:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
| |||