In a message dated 4/30/08 1:45:52 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Art is the intentional communication of an aesthetic experience.
>
> Mike -- I ask these questions just to clarify, not to challenge. Let's
momentarily put aside the question of whether you mean to say this "IS" art, or
simply what you yourself would CALL art.
Do you mean that an a.e. must occur? In other words, the mere intention to
cause one in a contemplator is not enough -- it has to "work"?
And: Suppose someone creates a painting, but hasn't shown it to anyone yet.
Unless we count the artist getting an a.e. alone in his studio each time he
looks at it, would that mean it's not art yet?
If we count the artist, suppose when he finishes the work, to his dismay it
leaves him cold. So he puts it aside. A week later, someone walks into the
studio and derives an a.e. from looking at the painting. Does it at that point
become art?
If we count the artist, my guess would be that the vast majority of works
created by a would-be artist give the creator an a.e. when he looks at it, so
almost everything created with the intention of communicating an a.e. would, by
your definition, be "art". Okay by you?
**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
