Oops! You're right; screw the trees.
On Mar 19, 2015 2:47 PM, "Randy Little" <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Art doesn't need to be eternal. art needs to do what its intended purpose is for however long the artist intended it to last. In fact this is a huge debate in the art conservation world. Whether to conserve art that was clearly not built of materials meant to last more then a few months or years at best.On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Lew Schwartz <lew1716@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I often seek the rhythm of myself in relationship to the height and
the length of the pieces, but I've been using trees. Art should be
eternal and who knows where they will be 5000 years from now?
-Lew Schwartz
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Any of you ever been to a huge desert like Qatar , Namib, or Sahara where
> there is only sand and sky as far as the eye can see?
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 12:38 PM, asharpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Pure hubris.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 3/19/15 10:17 AM, Jan Faul wrote:
>
>
> http://news.artnet.com/art-world/richard-serra-sculpture-qatar-278939?u
> tm_campaign=artnetnews&utm_source=031915daily&utm_medium=email
>
>
> Art Faul
>
>
>
>
>
> Art Faul
>
> The Artist Formerly Known as Prints
> ------
> Art for Cars: art4carz.com
> Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com
> Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com
> Camera Works - The Washington Post
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm
> ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
