But what about "bad art"? It won't stand the test of time, but it's still
called art - just not good art. If it has a frame, it's art.
Regards,
Bob...
------------------------------------------------
"A picture is worth a thousand words,
but it uses up three thousand times the memory."
From: "UncaMikey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work
endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great
art: a classic.
Oh goody, I love these types of discussions -- aesthetics! My
background and attitudes about art are shaped more by writing, painting
and music than photography, but I think the basic principles apply.
I agree with Paul, time is the only true test. I believe art
challenges, rearranges, annoys, disrupts, makes the
viewer/reader/audience think about things in ways they would not have
otherwise. Art makes you squirm.
Perhaps this is the divide between "pop" art and "true" art: the
former reassures and comforts, the latter reaches beyond the known and
actually enlarges our concept of what is reality. Norman Rockwell is
"pop" art and will be forgotten except as an artifact of his time.
Giotto, after 800 years, still startles.
As for photography, I don't think there has been enough time for us to
know whether any of it will survive as "art." I have my doubts.
