It seemed to me a simple question: what's in it for you if you call something art or not - wouldn't you still engage in the same analytic processes in order to dtermine what it is or might be in reference to
Beyond that most exchanges here tend to epistmologic - of the how do we know it's art - or the semantic Sent from my iPhone 646 528 8537 On 2009-07-09, at 6:23 AM, "Michael Brady" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/
