If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Warm Worm on May 19, 2006, 3:53 am
Kris Krieger wrote:
> IMO painting a canvas one color and then plopping a dot or stripe
onto it isn't art.
I've thought about this, and my formative take is that, if an artist
calls their work art, and they are being entirely honest and sincere
about it, then it *is* art, whether you think so or not.
You may question their sincerity or truthfulness, and reject it as such,
but, absolutely, it is the artist, alone, who determines whether their
work is art or not.
This philosophical perspective appeals to me because it respects and
elevates the artist and their work, such as by acknowledging their right
to one of the crucial aspects of their art-- its definition as such--
while at the same time, wresting the same kind of power of definition
where it doesn't belong.
It also improves our semantics regarding, and possibly our understanding
and appreciation of, 'art'.
Richard MacIntyre
|
|
Posted by Adam Weiss on May 19, 2006, 7:17 am
Warm Worm wrote:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
> > IMO painting a canvas one color and then plopping a dot or stripe
> onto it isn't art.
>
> I've thought about this, and my formative take is that, if an artist
> calls their work art, and they are being entirely honest and sincere
> about it, then it *is* art, whether you think so or not.
>
> You may question their sincerity or truthfulness, and reject it as such,
> but, absolutely, it is the artist, alone, who determines whether their
> work is art or not.
>
> This philosophical perspective appeals to me because it respects and
> elevates the artist and their work, such as by acknowledging their right
> to one of the crucial aspects of their art-- its definition as such--
> while at the same time, wresting the same kind of power of definition
> where it doesn't belong.
> It also improves our semantics regarding, and possibly our understanding
> and appreciation of, 'art'.
>
> Richard MacIntyre
So, if I were to ruminate at length on the art and philosophy of taking
a crap, then take one, my crap would be art?
|
|
Posted by Warm Worm on May 19, 2006, 3:33 pm
Adam Weiss wrote:
> Warm Worm wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>> > IMO painting a canvas one color and then plopping a dot or stripe
>> onto it isn't art.
>>
>> I've thought about this, and my formative take is that, if an artist
>> calls their work art, and they are being entirely honest and sincere
>> about it, then it *is* art, whether you think so or not.
>>
>> You may question their sincerity or truthfulness, and reject it as
>> such, but, absolutely, it is the artist, alone, who determines whether
>> their work is art or not.
>>
>> This philosophical perspective appeals to me because it respects and
>> elevates the artist and their work, such as by acknowledging their
>> right to one of the crucial aspects of their art-- its definition as
>> such-- while at the same time, wresting the same kind of power of
>> definition where it doesn't belong.
>> It also improves our semantics regarding, and possibly our
>> understanding and appreciation of, 'art'.
>>
>> Richard MacIntyre
>
>
> So, if I were to ruminate at length on the art and philosophy of taking
> a crap, then take one, my crap would be art?
I'm saying that it is not for me to tell you your "Mr. Hankey" is not
art if you think it is.
That would ignore the Other Mind problem, incidentally:
If I say I'm sad, you cannot absolutely refute that fact, short of
becoming me.
So, in the same sense, if my artwork was an expression of the spirit of
my sadness, as I truly believed it to be such, and someone said it was
not art, they would be in error by this philosophy.
|
|
Posted by 3D Peruna on May 19, 2006, 2:11 pm
Warm Worm wrote:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
> > IMO painting a canvas one color and then plopping a dot or stripe
> onto it isn't art.
>
> I've thought about this, and my formative take is that, if an artist
> calls their work art, and they are being entirely honest and sincere
> about it, then it *is* art, whether you think so or not.
>
> You may question their sincerity or truthfulness, and reject it as such,
> but, absolutely, it is the artist, alone, who determines whether their
> work is art or not.
>
> This philosophical perspective appeals to me because it respects and
> elevates the artist and their work, such as by acknowledging their right
> to one of the crucial aspects of their art-- its definition as such--
> while at the same time, wresting the same kind of power of definition
> where it doesn't belong.
> It also improves our semantics regarding, and possibly our understanding
> and appreciation of, 'art'.
>
> Richard MacIntyre
>
If we were to apply that logic to the rest of life, can you imagine what
a disaster that might be. Each person defining each term as they wish
it to be defined.
How about this definition. Art is art when somebody is willing to pay
for it.
|
|
Posted by Warm Worm on May 19, 2006, 3:17 pm
3D Peruna > wrote:
> Warm Worm wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>> > IMO painting a canvas one color and then plopping a dot or stripe
>> onto it isn't art.
>>
>> I've thought about this, and my formative take is that, if an artist
>> calls their work art, and they are being entirely honest and sincere
>> about it, then it *is* art, whether you think so or not.
>>
>> You may question their sincerity or truthfulness, and reject it as
>> such, but, absolutely, it is the artist, alone, who determines whether
>> their work is art or not.
>>
>> This philosophical perspective appeals to me because it respects and
>> elevates the artist and their work, such as by acknowledging their
>> right to one of the crucial aspects of their art-- its definition as
>> such-- while at the same time, wresting the same kind of power of
>> definition where it doesn't belong.
>> It also improves our semantics regarding, and possibly our
>> understanding and appreciation of, 'art'.
>>
>> Richard MacIntyre
>>
>
> If we were to apply that logic to the rest of life, can you imagine what
> a disaster that might be. Each person defining each term as they wish
> it to be defined.
'Defining a personal work as art'. That's a big difference.
I'm not talking about defining the word, but rather the work.
> How about this definition. Art is art when somebody is willing to pay
> for it.
As Brudgers might say, that's just plain stupid. ;P :)
|
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 > last >>
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap