On Aug 22, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Bob Sullivan wrote: > >> Right on! Art is in the feelings it creates, not the intent of >> the artist. > > I disagree. I think it's the intent of the artist that determines if > it's art. And the feelings it creates that determine if the art's any > *good* :)
That's a little better. My opinions ... - Without intent, art does not exist. It is not essential that the artist be entirely conscious of the intent with which they make the art ... the art often moves as if of its own will to an expression that surprises its maker. - Without resonance with and appreciation of a viewer, an evaluation of "good art" does not have meaning, and a piece might not be deemed as art having not had its intent revealed. BTW, the viewer could indeed be the artist themself... intent is not the same as appreciation. But it gets twisty: A good bit of the time, the artists I know are more dissatisfied with the art they produced than a viewing audience is... ! - There is no such thing as "the best art" unless you are speaking in the context of that which appeals, resonates with you specifically. Or are measuring the value of art as to its marketability/ saleability. Accessible art in photography is often just pretty pictures which remind people of pretty places and good times. Or help sell other products by association. Discussions of art often get just as convoluted as discussions of metaphysics, epistemology and quantum mechanics. I try to keep it simple: I do photography and some of it I offer as art for people to critique. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
