i think it is a mistake to try to define anti art or art in general in regards to
intent.
simply, "intent" and "result" are often so unrelated. intent is also difficult
to apply any empiricism to, simply it is practically unobservable as any
dicsussion of intent by the artist him/herself lends itself to just our witnessing
the RESULT of his/her attempt to communicate intent. so it's the exact same thing
as viewing art. for example
a group of people are gathered around a construction that appeares to be a boat.
the man standing next to the boat says "i meant to construct an aeroplane, i meant it
to fly". the observers noticing that the boat is incapable of flight may attribute
the result as a failure to execute his intent. but what if his statement was a failure
to execute his intent as well? see, only the result is observable and perhaps
that is the only thing we should concern ourselves with in evaluating art or anti art.
so it doesn't matter what van gogh said he intended to do or wanted. it is
more important what he actually did.
so the only definition we can attribute to anti art is that it is anything produced
outside the preconcieved societal conceptions of art that communicates or operates
within
the artist - spectator milieu. intent is irrelevant.
jason
>
>
>as for anti-art, i'm not so sure i know what that means. van gogh was making
>art that was unaceptable during his lifetime but it wasn't anti-art because
>that was not his intention; he wanted very much to be accepted and if you read
>his letters to theo he wanted this with all his being. way farthur down the
>line i think the early fluxus movement was anti-art with the happenings and
>all but it was and is also art.
>
>
