This again, does it have to be good to be art? Personally I believe the intent of the artist, good or bad is what makes something art. The question then becomes not "Is it art", but "Is it good art"?
OTOH, if the all pretentious critics insist it is art, when the producer had no such intention, then they are just a bunch of quacks quacking. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 8/21/2007 1:17:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I don't know, you make a valid point, but then, I think that some of > our best pieces of art are produced with years of experience but are > done well enough to be liked and enjoyed by people without the same > knowledge. Certainly everyone has the capacity to enjoy great art, > but can we all produce it? > > rg2 > > ============= > Yes, No. > > The best art is the most universal art. Any artist learns this right away in > their first drawing/painting classes. (I did.) Ergo, someone else can look > at it and "get" it. > > The more personal the POV in a piece of art -- maybe it's more interesting > -- but the receptive audience is cut down in direct proportion to how > personal > the POV gets (take surrealism). Actually, this applies to all things, > including photography and writing, etc. > > Marnie aka Doe :-) > > --------------------------------------------- > Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
