Rather than finding "art" in the collection of qualitative features
associated with a particular artifact, I believe we are much better off with
a functional definition, to wit:
Art is the intentional communication of an aesthetic experience.
IMO, it is not the beauty, sublimity, drama or shock that makes something a
work of art, but the way it fits into the patterns of human behavior and
understanding.
Mike Mallory
________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Beauty? I think not!
It seems to me that you and Chris and others want a list of criteria. (How
else would one give 'reasons'?) There is no such list. (Or if you think
so,
what is it?) You yourself believe that some works are what you call
cherishable - which is presumably something like what I call art. What are
your criteria? More importantly do you think you cherish those works
because you have applied criteria - ticked off boxes - or simply because
they have a certain effect on you?
