|
|
|
Menlo Park, California, USA
| StoreTags: art philosophy
Author: kucharo on February 19 2007 Viewed 6134 times. 18 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: room, stringedthry, 11t1, mrpanda, cbit, Roshi, electrodan, subset, ignatius, Jetsom, reehc, nagrom, j_chot, Logo, yghartsyrt, craque, astroid, monkvolcano
-->
Just leave a comment stating what you think 'art' is. That is all. I find this question interesting, but perhaps the question itself is invalid. Is art even a useful word to describe anything? Is even thinking about what art is and is not a useful enterprise? If there is no fixed and generally accepted definition of what art is, can there be a natural talent for it? | |
Comments
02/21/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
craque
actually cbit, i'm even considering that things non-human animals may create as art.
these discussions are always interesting, but never fail to point out 'art' as its own extreme subjectivity.
02/21/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
subset
monkvolcano said: "the only thing that's kind of hard for me to swallow about what you are saying, is that it almost implies that someone has to 'decided' that something is art for it to be art..
i tend to think more that everything we do is potentially art, just waiting for someone to percieve it as such"
I stand by my assertion that Art is in the eye of the beholder - potentially art doesn't mean it is art - it becomes art when someone looking at it decides that it is. It's perfectly valid for one "untrained" person to decide that something is art for themselves. I think maybe you were implying that you didn't want to wait for some expert to decide for you - DON'T!!
Too many people are intimidated by the 'art world' and all the vacuous pseudo-intellectualizing that goes into justifying people's self-indulgence. I think the people here on EM411 seem to be genuinely searching, though, and I've been enjoying reading all of these comments. So thanks!
craque said: "does the concept of 'art' require a human interpreter? perhaps the entire concept of 'art' means it should not."
I suppose the interpreter doesn't have to be human, but we, as humans, may never know.
02/21/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
subset
craque said: "'art' as its own extreme subjectivity"
YES! The 'Art' of an object is not intrinsic to the object (or act, event, etc). Each person has to decide for themselves, although cultural programming tends to make people inclined to accept some things more readily than others (paint on canvas, for example, or a series of notes plucked on a guitar). A baby raised by insects will probably just see that it's not food and move on...
edited: Feb 22 2007
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
datathinner
art is just expression. thats what makes art in its purest, rawest form mostly boring.
to yghartsyrt: yes, the definition of great or higher art is found on the discourse of humanity. and a refinement of such expression. i think my words got taken a bit out of context. art is just expression, but mere expression is boring, commonplace.
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
