> IMO, one cannot reasonably define art solely in terms of the > artist, the work, or the intent of the artist, any more than > one can reasonably define art solely in terms of the > viewer/recipient/?. Art is a collaboration between the > "artist", the "work", and the "viewer". Both humans must be > engaged, though not necessarily satisfied, for the work to > achieve the status of "art". >
That would exclude a great deal of work, such as the Lascaux cave paintings and Shaker furniture, that is now generally considered to be art, for whatever reason, but which could not possibly have been produced with such a collaboration in mind. Bob -- 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.
