Bob wrote: >Art is anything an artist says, it is. BTW It's very tempting to answer: Define an artist! But, I don't think so. Art is what the buyers, spectators, listeners etc. consider to be art. Everyone but the artist, basicly. Theartist never knows for sure if it's art. The label "art" must be earned and depends on the reception and reputation of the work. Even mass produced items can be art. I, for one, consider "The Lion King" and "Alladin" (Disney) to be art. To me it is. To others perhaps not.
Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Bob Shell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 8. februar 2006 12:22 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: OT: Helmut Newton On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > I don't want to start a whole big thing about whether or not > photography is "art". Far as I'm concerned it is and that's "settled > law". Helmut's "answer" is a bit oblique for me and since you don't > disagree, care to comment further? Thanks! In response to the tired "Is photography art?" question, I think it was Man Ray who responded "Art is not photograpy!" Basically it was a stupid question when first asked, and betrays the stupidity of anyone who continues to ask it today. Art is anything an artist says it is. I think Newton was making this same point in his own unique way. Bob
