On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:55 PM, steve harley <p...@paper-ape.com> wrote: > > another problem with requiring "intent" is how does the viewer know about > the intent ... > > is it always obvious? is any intent sufficient? must one meet or learn about > the artist as well as experience the art? what if we perceive intent where > there is none? what if we perceive no intent where there is some? what about > art that deliberately manipulates the perception of intent? >
Well I have my simple answer to that. 1. I can tell art even when it's art I don't like. There's a ton of art that I do not like or that I actually detest, or I think 'why would anybody do that?', yet I will admit it is art. 2. In my book if there is no intent or if the shown item (assuming we're limiting the discussion to things visible) displays no intent, then I'll conclude logically that there was no intent, so I don't define it as art. Put another way, if the maker of something deliberately produces something that is so incongruous or disharmonious, that ist's devoid of perceivable intent, then I have every right to view it in that way. I would likely view it as junk and not art. I would also venture to say that a random sampling of the general populace would view it the same way and that virtually the only ones that would view such a work as art, is the art theorists themselves. Really I've tried to see it from their point of view but I couldn't get my head up that far. Everyone of course is free to disagree. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
