Unless there is a consensus that art - or major aspects of it - should be forbidden altogether, I think it will do fine. Given half a chance, humans in general like experimenting, they like putting their ideas outside of themselves in various forms if only to examine those ideas themselves, and they often find themselves in sympathy with others' expression. The better the means of communication, the more likely they are to find those sympathetic others, which in turn allows them to sharpen their expression and develop more complex ideas.
The consensus doesn't have to be universal to even support art as a profession; from a financial POV it only takes a few hundred people of average income, spending a tiny fraction (say 1%) of their money on art, to support an artist. Cheers; Chris On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:32 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you mean that there is a lack of consensus, then I agree. > > But I have to ask as I did before?: > > - Can art exist without a consensus?
