The question of what's art and what's not art is no longer valid in our postmodern era. Since anything can be art (Duchamp Danto, etc.) the real question is when is something art. Interpretation needs to focus on that, the when, and not whether something has defining intrinsic, 'inside' art attributes. All of the attributes that enable art interpretation and art identity are 'outside' the art object. Furthermore, they are unstable. This opens the field for art. It means more freedom for artists and for beholders and allows more criticality of culture. Criticality (reflective judgment) is the first necessary step for betterment of self and society.
All of Berg's posts on art are centered on the presumption that something is art intrinsically and something else is not art intrinsically. Or he sometimes transfers that split to the judgment-insight of society: if society is thinking correctly and intelligently it can discover what is intrinsically art; if it acts stupidly or is corrupted, it can't correctly determine what is intrinsically art. Either way misses the point. Again, don't ask what is art but ask when is art. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, April 17, 2012 5:15:12 AM Subject: "It's bad art because it does not create belief in the fiction that the artist has rendered. Instead, the artist's belief must be explained" http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2012/03/why-a-painting-of-president-obama-with-a-burning-constitution-is-junk.html
