On 5/19/2010 4:17 AM, Bob W wrote:
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
I don't know about the cave paintings, a lot of religious art was
created for a viewer other than a human viewer, not that human viewers
can't appreciate it. But that isn't the point really.
Shaker furniture is still crafts, a high level of crafts but still
crafts. To call them art debases them. To display shaker furniture in
glass cases and not use it for their intended purpose misses the point.
The original makers would be appalled.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
