On Jul 8, 2009, at 11:48 PM, Saul Ostrow wrote:
I'm not sure what your saying I'm trying to figureout what value there is to youin calling something art - I'm wondering why you would want to say a painting is art- what function or utility does that imply it serves
A lot of the discussions here (and elsewhere) include whether something "is art" or not--basically a question of taxonomy. Some say that a picture "is art" if it exhibits a lot of some quality (such as what is not found in paintings by Kinkade). Etc. I believe that approach is wrong because it merges a qualitative evaluation with a categorical determination.
All of us seem to operate with our own working notion of "art" that allows us to make statements about the art-quality of X or Y and about aesthetics, etc.
So, for me, what is my notion? How do I know that A is a work of art but B is not? The "truth factor," i.e., "true or not applicable."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [email protected] http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
