Yes, that was my point. And I also implied that we can't say that today's artists are really split between those who claim that "anything can be art" and those who think only "special things can be art". There really is no split but simply a narrow or broad way of regarding something aesthetically. This would seem like an obvious point but in fact the error of presuming a split between "art is anything" (like a readymade) and art is special (like a hand-carved statue) underlies the public aesthetic and even the teaching of art and artists. This presumed split shows up in such terms as skilled and deskilled, suggesting that the traditional art practice of acquiring skills in, say, drawing from nature (extracting art from nature) contrasts with the view that since art is an idea about nature (awareness of cultural projection of art) it does not need the filter -- and thus the distortion --of drawing skills. This has even led to the elimination of skill-based teaching in art schools -- perceptual drawing for instance. To me this reveals the fakery of so much modernist-postmodernist art theory. It has much more to do with the structure of artworld politics and power (essentially art-market realities that require a rarity of art to function) than with real theory and aesthetics. Those in power now are the "art is anything" people and yet, Orwellian-like, what they really are saying is, Art is anything, except traditional skill-based art.
wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; [email protected] Sent: Mon, May 24, 2010 7:31:14 AM Subject: Re: "I regret that, in our attempt to establish some standards, we didn't make them stick. We couldn't find a way to pass them on to another generation, really." Is it the intent to make art or the process of making art which is more important in setting standards? Durer assumed a great deal about the results and and nature of the process when he said that art was embedded in nature, a remark which could be made now by many artists with different views of process. His view of intent may not have been as different from present views of intent as his view of process from present views of process. KAte Sulllivan In a message dated 5/23/10 2:01:14 AM, [email protected] writes: > For about 100 years it's been widely understood that anything can > be art. Actually, that idea has been validated since the Renaissance when > artists like Durer claimed that art is in nature. I quote him: "Verily, art > is embedded in nature; he who can extract it has it" Thus if art already > exists in anything and everything how can some things be excluded by > standards? There are no standards. There are only choices, interests, and the > wit, and skill or lack of skill, of those who can use them to extract art > from anything.
