It is my feeling that when a group of "so-called' experts on art,
reach consensus on what is art,
It is only a compromised consensus. Clones ,we are not, not yet. It'
an individual thing,believe It.
mando
On Jul 9, 2009, at 3:21 AM, Michael Brady 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/
