|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2005 : 11:43:07 [Permalink]
|
In response to dv82matt:
“Not kidding. The winking smiley means I realize that my opinion is not authoritative. ”
If you said “That art is bad.” You would be expressing your personal taste, and thus the opinion would not be authoritative, and it would have practical meaning. But if you say “That is not art”, you are using a definition of art that doesn't exist in academic usage. It has no practical meaning. You might claim that you're using a definition of art that is common knowledge, but people talk about “God” as if the definition of God is common knowledge, and one doesn't need to dig very deep to realize that such a common knowledge definition doesn't really exist. Most people don't even have a clear idea themselves of what they mean when they say “God”, and that is equally true of how people use the word “art” in everyday conversations. Likewise, “art” does have meaningful definition when used by critics, artists, art historians, curators and educated lovers of art, just as “God” can be a meaningful term in a philosophical discussion.
I've read a bit about Warhol, I admit he doesn't interest me.
Odd to say he doesn't interest you when you bother to discount his immense contribution to art history and modern aesthetic dialogue. It seems like it would have been far more appropriate for you to say “I hate Andy Warhol's work.” Saying it is not art makes it appear that you think ignorance is superior and resent the authority of the art world. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You and me looking at the same painting. To you it's art and it's okay if you say so. To me it's not art. Is it alright if I say so?
As much as it is “alright” for a person to make a practically meaningless statement.
Well I'm feeling generous today, so I guess it's okay if they have an opinion also.
Your emperor's new clothes comment strongly indicates that you think the authority of the art world is based on deception. I don't think your opinions are as democratic as you make them out to be.
I am not going to even try to be democratic on the issue of fine art, because that would reduce standards in the field to the lowest common denominator standards of commercial entertainment. For that reason, I am not afraid to say that someone in the art world's opinion on this subject is more credible, sophisticated, intelligent and authoritative than your opinion. When art critics, art historians, artists, curators, and educated lovers of art express opinions about the merit of a work, and when aesthetic philosophers define art, what they are saying has meaning and impact on our understanding of creative practices and how we rank their value. What you are saying doesn't do that.
Okay, my mistake. I should have said, "The final result is essentially identical to a photograph of a soup can and is utterly unoriginal and completely lacking in creativity so it is only trivially different from a readymade."
See, this goes back to why I brought up the genre of photorealism in the first place. Here is an actual photorealistic painting by Chuck Close: http://facstaffwebs.umes.edu/bphudson/pixs/mark.jpg The painting is taller than a person, and if you see it in a museum you can't even be sure it's a painting and not a photograph until you read the label. Now is that a painting or a photograph? Obviously it is a painting. Warhol's works are prints, not readymades. They are far more creative than readymades, and they are not, by any means, anti-art in the way that readymades are so obviously anti-art. Not to say that they don't have a relationship to readymades, but you have not established any meaningful relationship, and you have failed to do so exactly because of your ignorance about these genres of art and aesthetics in general.
Fair enough. For my edification, could you suggest a concise word that would be appropriate to use to express the "photorealism" of Warhol's soup can?
W |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/06/2005 11:50:37 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 12:24:26 [Permalink]
|
General response to Humbert and Kil joining the discussion:
Kil has said things in much plainer terms and much better than I ever can. I am in total agreement with everything he's wrote on this thread thus far, and I'm jealous of his way of putting things.
I really like Humbert's defining of art, and would like to respond/add to what has already developed from it. I don't agree that art is "solely determined by the intention of the creator", but that is a HUGE part of it. The guy who designed the Brillo Box that made Warhol famous was actually a budding abstract painter who only did commercial designs to make money. That artist's sense of color and composition allowed him to create a very appealing and striking design, but since he didn't intend it to be looked at as art and valued for those qualitied, Warhol gets the credit for recognizing the value of the design and reproducing it. This may sound like theft, but is it theft when a cityscape painter paints the skyline of New York? Is that painter stealing from architects and urban planners? Part of making is art is actually rendering an image or sculpture, but part of realism is picking out subject matter than is visually interesting in the first place. Warhol was highly skilled in both respects. (the guy actually could draw and design himself - he started out as a formally trained and highly successful commercial artist.)
But anyway, Matt brought up the sock stain hypothetical, and Humbert asked if there needs to be a "critical mass of people" for something to be art. I do consider a participating audience as part of what makes something "art", because if no one actually uses the term "art" I don't see how it has any meaning. But I don't think there needs to be a critical mass. If two people are stranded on a desert island, and one starts making drawings in the sand, presents them to the other, who responds emotionally and/or intellectually to the aesthetic qualities of the work, it is art.
Actually, I used to live with two other artists, and this sort of desert island thing started happening. I was a representational painter, one guy was a conceptual photographer and printer, and one was an abstract painter. Since we represented extremely different genres, we talked about art a lot, and deeply influenced each other's work. We started making little works of art for the house, one of which was a pan of muffins that was accidentally left in the oven so long that they turned entirely black and hardened. I made them, one roomate dubbed it art, and I and the other agreed with him. We hung the whole muffin pan on the wall, called it a collaborative work of art, titled it, discussed it, presented it to our friends. I'm not saying it was good art. Hell, it wasn't established enough within a new genre to even have clear standards on which to base its merit (though in relation to similar genres, I'd probably say it was pretty mediocre outside of the context of our apartment). But it was art because it socially functioned as such. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/06/2005 12:31:18 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 15:33:52 [Permalink]
|
I wrote this reply before Marfknox posted her last reply. She pretty much covered what I am responding to. But I thought since I spent the time writing this, I would post it anyway…
quote:
dv82matt: Well I'm feeling generous today, so I guess it's okay if they have an opinion also.
quote:
marfknox:
Your emperor's new clothes comment strongly indicates that you think the authority of the art world is based on deception. I don't think your opinions are as democratic as you make them out to be.
I am not going to even try to be democratic on the issue of fine art, because that would reduce standards in the field to the lowest common denominator standards of commercial entertainment. For that reason, I am not afraid to say that someone in the art world's opinion on this subject is more credible, sophisticated, intelligent and authoritative than your opinion. When art critics, art historians, artists, curators, and educated lovers of art express opinions about the merit of a work, and when aesthetic philosophers define art, what they are saying has meaning and impact on our understanding of creative practices and how we rank their value. What you are saying doesn't do that.
I agree with marfknox. I would only add that many of us unwashed masses have also been touched by Warhol's work and in no small measure have also been responsible for the success of his art. I would also point out that there are many levels of appreciation that any work of art can be viewed from. Everything from “this art appeals to me but I really can't say why” to “see how the artist is exploring and celebrating the culture of mass production by holding up a mirror to it in this work,” and beyond.
Many years ago my father told me that he just didn't get modern abstract art. I suggested that he should look at it without trying to get it. “Does it please you? Does it cause any emotional response in you?” One does not need the ability to deconstruct a work of art to be touched by it in some way. Most artists would be pleased if their art simply caused some feeling of emotion.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 17:28:59 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote: "Many years ago my father told me that he just didn't get modern abstract art. I suggested that he should look at it without trying to get it."
Good suggestion. It's funny - though a certain amount of blind anti-intellectualism exist in this country concerning many subjects, fine art as an intellectual discipline sort of experiences the opposite. In the case of art, it is often the non-intellectuals who let their ideological expectations get in the way of a more open and innocent experience and interpretation. I hate it when I show a non-art person a painting or print of mine, and when I ask for their response, they say, "Oh, uh, I don't know anything about art." Concepts are wonderful shortcuts for dealing with life, but - argh - they so often cause us to miss what is right in front of our noses.
People can come to appreciate art through different pathways. I got into art 'cause I had a natural ability to draw, but I had almost no natural appreciation for visual aesthetics. I had to develop my appreciation for things like abstract art through exposure to color theory and courses in art theory and aesthetics. But my dad's brother and his wife, a steel worker and housewife who never went to college, both have the most incredible natural appreciation for purely visual elements. Now that their kids are grown, my Aunt designs the most exquisite and unique quilts (mostly gifts for friends and family), and the look of aesthetic rapture and pride in my Uncle's eyes when she finishes a large work is moving.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/06/2005 17:31:58 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 02:43:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Lots of people see it as art. And not just those with backgrounds in art. That you don?t is ok. But lets not make this an elitist thing. Warhol exhibits always sell out. And there are not enough students of art to make that happen. You also insult the intelligence of the people who are not students of art who go to the exhibits. People who just happen to like Warhol.
I don't want to make art an elitist thing. Only a relative thing.
Also, I did not insult anyones intelligence.quote:
I think it would be fair to say that most artists worth their salt take risks. Some risk more than others. The fact remains that Andy Warhol is widely considered to be one of the greatest artists of the 20th century. Some feel that he was the greatest. His influences can be seen everywhere.
We seem to be in agreement here.quote:
And again you are suggesting that an elite was responsible for his success.
Not at all. I was merely speculating that understanding the background of a piece may alter the viewer's perception of it. And that since I am largely ignorant of the 'history' behind the soup can work, that this might account for why I do not consider it to be art.quote:
Do you have any idea of how many Warhol prints are hanging on people?s walls?
Not really, no.quote:
Do you actually believe that the only reason people buy art is because some critic told them it was good art?
No I don't believe this. I never said any such thing.quote:
I am sure that is the case sometimes.
To agree with you, it probably happens sometimes but I think that it is rarely the only reason.quote:
But really, you can hardly go through a day without seeing something that was inspired by Warhol.
Probably true, I don't really know.quote:
Many of his works are icons. Shoot, we have on our site a graphic that @tomic, our webmaster made up that is directly inspired by Warhol, here.
That is fine. I can't say that I consider it art though. I really don't have any particular reaction to it.quote:
I can?t get you to like the soup cans.
Nor to dislike them. If they evoked a negative emotional response in me I would consider them to be art.quote:
I can?t even get you to think of them as art.
No, and I'm sure that I can't get you to consider them as "not art".quote:
But I would suggest that if you use something as controversial as the soup cans were as an example of what is not art, you consider the possibility that the controversy itself suggests that it is art, like it or not?
But see, that's just the point I've been trying to make. The controversy suggests that some people consider the soup cans to be art while some do not. To suggest that something is art in an absolute sense denies the reality that art is subjective. If someone honestly considers something to be art then it is art to that person. On the other hand the reverse also holds true.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 09:44:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
dv82matt:
Also, I did not insult anyones intelligence.
I was responding to these three remarks by you:
quote:
If the majority of the art community had refused to follow his lead, then very few people today would consider his soup can painting to be art.
What I am getting at is that, although I am still of the opinion that it is not art, I can see how someone with a background in art and art history, and an understanding of what Warhol was going for, could see it as art.
It just seems unlikely to me that it would cause an emotional response in most people (like me) who are ignorant of its background and what Warhol was going for, and the rest.
All three of the above statements suggest that the casual viewer of art would not have recognized the soup cans as art without being told by art experts that the cans are art. And you were not talking about them being recognized by people unschooled in art as either being good art or bad art, but as being art at all!
Maybe I need some clarification here. You said:
“It just seems unlikely to me that it would cause an emotional response in most people (like me) who are ignorant of its background and what Warhol was going for, and the rest.”
Do you mean “…most people who are ignorant of the background…” or did you mean most people who are ignorant of the background and also happen to be people like you?
I can tell you that the first time I saw the soup cans on exhibit back in the sixties, I did not know the background story on them. I did not know what Warhol was going for exactly. Both their size and my familiarity with the objects depicted drew me in first. I couldn't take my eyes off them. Why would something as mundane as a soup can, faithfully rendered but larger than those on the shelf at home be so compelling to me? I did not need an art expert to tell me that it was my job to be compelled by them and to question why I had the reaction I had to them. I admit that I turned to the experts to help sort that out for me. But even if I hadn't, my first reaction to them stands.
So to suggest that I needed to be told that it was art is insulting. Perhaps I have completely misunderstood what you said, but I can't find it in what you wrote.
quote:
dv82matt:
But see, that's just the point I've been trying to make. The controversy suggests that some people consider the soup cans to be art while some do not. To suggest that something is art in an absolute sense denies the reality that art is subjective. If someone honestly considers something to be art then it is art to that person. On the other hand the reverse also holds true.
Yes, art is subjective and you do get to say that Warhol's art is crap for the reasons you have stated. You even get to say that it isn't art; since the art patrol is not going to cart you off and torture you until you admit that it is art. When I was a kid, abstract art was the subject of much ridicule. Chimps were given brushes and paint to parody Jackson Pollock and others. Proof that slapping color on a canvas was not art. Indeed, those who were not ready for a change in direction have denigrated every movement in art. I guess what I am saying is you can assert, even for yourself only, that the cans are not art. But I think that you are taking a very narrow view, even if your view is logically allowable.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 12:08:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
dv82matt:
Also, I did not insult anyones intelligence.
I was responding to these three remarks by you:
"If the majority of the art community had refused to follow his lead, then very few people today would consider his soup can painting to be art."
The art community does have an impact on what people perceive as art though. Even if it is only through exposing people to what they consider to be 'good' art.quote:
"What I am getting at is that, although I am still of the opinion that it is not art, I can see how someone with a background in art and art history, and an understanding of what Warhol was going for, could see it as art.
Here I was suggesting that understanding the background of a piece has an impact on how it is perceived.quote:
It just seems unlikely to me that it would cause an emotional response in most people (like me) who are ignorant of its background and what Warhol was going for, and the rest.
I am expressing an opinion here. I am not insulting anyone. If you believe that I am wrong, (and clearly you do) then why not simply say something like, "My personal experience suggests that you are wrong here."quote:
Do you mean "...most people who are ignorant of the background..." or did you mean most people who are ignorant of the background and also happen to be people like you?
I meant, "...most people who are ignorant of the background..."quote:
So to suggest that I needed to be told that it was art is insulting. Perhaps I have completely misunderstood what you said, but I can?t find it in what you wrote.
I can't find an insult in what I wrote, so if you feel insulted it is not due to me.quote:
Yes, art is subjective and you do get to say that Warhol?s art is crap for the reasons you have stated.
I don't say it is crap though.quote:
...I think that you are taking a very narrow view, even if your view is logically allowable.
I think my view is broader than yours in many ways. For example, I would probably not consider a chimp's painting to be art until I was made aware that it was in fact painted by a chimp. That knowledge would change the way I perceived the painting. I would then have an intellectual and emotional response to the painting and would thus consider it to be art. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 15:33:05 [Permalink]
|
| Okay Matt, this is getting us nowhere. I honestly thought I could find a way to show you why “that is not art” and “I am not the least bit touched by that art” make all the difference in the world when making value judgments about art that you have no connection to. I was wrong. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 15:48:07 [Permalink]
|
.....and it is that emotional response that to me is the key to "art".
The relevance of the intention of the original peice gives way to the emotion that it ellisits (sp?).
With regards Warhol and his soup cans, the fact that this discussion has raised so many emotions is testemant to that.
The significance of the original image is lost in the discussion of it's interpratation regardless of whether that interpratation is favorable to the peice or not.
It is always interesting to know the ulterior motive of the artist when considering any peice, but it's worth will ulitimatly depend on how much someone is willing to pay for it.
If art is the soul made manifest, then no-one, not even the artist can say what it really represents.
If art is an investment, then it's a buyers market. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 21:15:27 [Permalink]
|
To dv82matt:
I was merely speculating that understanding the background of a piece may alter the viewer's perception of it.
Of course it will, and it should. But I don't think you realize all the ways in which someone can know the background of a piece. Kil responded to Warhol's soup cans when he saw them partially because he recognized them as something familiar. Obviously he has more background understanding than an Australian aborigines living in the outback, and obviously the piece will make more sense to him right off.
But you seem to be arguing that the aborigine's opinion on whether Warhol's works are “art” or not is equally legitimate as, say, the aesthetic philosopher Arthur Danto's opinion. It is not. Similarly, Aborigines have their own complex artistic tradition, and obviously their opinions on whether a dot painting of legendary pathways of the ancestral spirits is art is far more legitimate than your subjective and ignorant emotional and intellectual response. When I see art that I don't “get”, I might respond to it in my own subjective way, and that is meaningful to me, but I'm not so foolish as to include my ignorant and personal response as reason to legitimize such works as “art”. I alone am not the measure of such things. How art is defined is a social activity. Those who participate most, and most eloquently, have the most influence in how the term is defined and applied.
You are right when you say the definition of art is relative. It is culturally relative. But cultural relativism doesn't mean that all definitions posed by individuals are equally legit. If it meant that, then, again, concepts like “art” become meaningless, and thus are useless to productive discourse and practical application.
I can't say that I consider it art though. I really don't have any particular reaction to it.
Can you at least see why that is a not useful definition of the word “art” in practice? Can you imagine if everybody used your definition? Instead of discussing the merits of a work, people would stand around saying, “This is art to me.” and “But it is not art to me.” and then they'd have a big philosophical discussion instead of actually discussing the work. (How much more comprehendible it would be to say: “To me, this art means…” and “I just don't get this art.”)And what do we call this stuff that is simultaneously “art” and “not art” when we try to write about it in art history or in art criticism? And then how are we to judge the merits of a piece, and how are we to describe movements in art if all pieces' very status as works of art are subject to the whim of every person, whether they participate in the art world or not?
Ironically, for someone who opposes postmodernism because it can potentially be taken to an irrational extreme, you are doing just that.
To suggest that something is art in an absolute sense denies the reality that art is subjective.
And exactly who on this forum has suggested that Warhol's art in an “absolute” sense? You have assumed that people are making that suggestion. In our time and culture, Warhol's soup cans are art. If you deny that, you are wrong according with the establishment of art as it is practiced in this culture. But according to other culturally established definitions of art (like the Aborigines for example) his soup cans might not be art. If you became an aesthetic philosopher and came up with a far more sophisticated reasons to promote your definition of art, and if you could convince enough people who actually engage in the act of developing our culture's ideas of what art is, then your opinion might have some legitimacy and significant meaning. But on this forum it is just empty philosophizing that has no relevance in real life.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 21:24:51 [Permalink]
|
In response to Dry_vby:
”but it's worth will ulitimatly depend on how much someone is willing to pay for it.”
Only its monetary worth will ultimately depend on how much someone is willing to pay for it. Some works of art are not worth any money (like graffiti or the art of cultures that don't have clearly defined concepts of personal property), but obviously these works are “worth” something to certain groups of people.
”If art is the soul made manifest, then no-one, not even the artist can say what it really represents.”
I am going to guess that by “the soul made manifest” that you mean subconscious associations and emotional expression. If so, I would say that no-one, not even the artist can say with absolute certainty what the work represents. However, the meaning of a work of art is not just in what inspired its creation, but also in how a willing audience interprets it and in how the artist might express their conscious intention. For instance, I did a diptych where I have animal silhouettes go off the visual plane in the center, as if they are about to fall into a chasm. I didn't consciously mean for it to be interpreted that way, but a critic pointed it out to me, and I thought that fit well with my conscious intentions. But certainly no one can say whether or not I subconsciously placed them in that way for that reason.
That said, subconscious pattern recognition plays a huge role in art-making, and while we can never be sure if any single element in a work was subconsciously intentional, there are too many coincidences in consistent symbolism to indicate that the subconscious plays no role. Art therapists learn a lot about this sort of stuff.
”If art is an investment, then it's a buyers market.”
Not sure what this has to do with the rest of the conversation.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 22:04:17 [Permalink]
|
I think to say that the indiginous Australian "art" is created with any of the understanding of what WASP's might consider an artistic sensability is a mis-representation.
These people do not create these works as an "artistic statement", but as a statement of ritual and beleif.
To call it art is to disrespect it, and if any western art were created with the same intense sense of purpose and trivialised in the same manner there would be some kind of outcry.
Art, to me is an attempt to represent the unrepresentable.
If any one even comes close, I am astounded.
Otherwise, I just observe and moniter my response.
Anyone can call anything art, but it's worth, more than it's subject matter, is usually what ends up being remembered.
Why bother with art at all?
It has no inherent use and can not be relied on in any kind of emergancy.
It is redundant, even more so in this day and age. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 22:22:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
...you seem to be arguing that the aborigine?s opinion on whether Warhol?s works are ?art? or not is equally legitimate as, say, the aesthetic philosopher Arthur Danto?s opinion. It is not.
Assuming that they share the same basic definition of art, I do feel that an aboriginie's opinion is equally legitimate.quote:
How art is defined is a social activity.
Yes, but whether a partcular piece meets that definition is an individual decision.quote:
You are right when you say the definition of art is relative.
I wasn't saying that the definition of art is relative. (I suppose that it is though.) What I was saying is that art is relative.quote:
Can you at least see why that is a not useful definition of the word ?art? in practice?
I don't agree that it would be particularily awkward.quote:
Can you imagine if everybody used your definition? Instead of discussing the merits of a work, people would stand around saying, ?This is art to me.? and ?But it is not art to me.? and then they?d have a big philosophical discussion instead of actually discussing the work.
Yeah, wouldn't that be great! 
But seriously the problems that you mention don't seem particularily difficult to resolve. It's just a matter of being clear about what we are talking about.quote:
Ironically, for someone who opposes postmodernism because it can potentially be taken to an irrational extreme, you are doing just that.
I'm not taking anything to an irrational extreme as far as I can tell.quote:
...exactly who on this forum has suggested that Warhol?s art in an ?absolute? sense?
You did. You indicated the the statement, "It's not art." is a meaningless statement. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 23:03:59 [Permalink]
|
What I was saying is that art is relative.
Actual art is physical objects. Physical objects are not relative. Only the meaning, definition, and quality of art is relative, and you have focussed exclusively on definition, which is why I assumed you meant that the definition of art was relative. But now I'm just confused. What do you mean by "art is relative"?
You did. You indicated the the statement, "It's not art." is a meaningless statement.
In context. (In other words, this is a misunderstanding based on semantic LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE ON THIS DAMN FORUM. ARGH!) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 23:50:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
What do you mean by "art is relative"?
I think that I have been fairly clear about this.
Definition of art: A creative work which evokes an aesthetic, emotional or intellectual response.
Whether a particular work fits the definition is relative to the viewer.quote:
You did. You indicated the the statement, "It's not art." is a meaningless statement.
In context. (In other words, this is a misunderstanding based on semantic LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE ON THIS DAMN FORUM. ARGH!)
Damn huh? Oh well. Water under the bridge I guess.
I do have some suggestions that might help to lessen your frustration. If you're interested I'd be happy to share them.  |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
