Oh, I do not think that my seeing it as banal at first glance made it not art, not do I think that my responding to it made it art. The fact that the artist was able to convey his/her emotional response to the subject to me, did make it good art.
Once again, because I like or dislike something does not make it art. And because you like or dislike something does not make it art. What makes something art is the artist's intention to convey something beyond the apparent. I am fully aware that that definition makes almost all photography not art. Of course in the end I guess it does not matter what you or I or anyone other than the artist thinks. But I firmly believe art has to be intentional, if it is not it is just happenstance. frank theriault wrote: > I'm glad the piece that you saw became appreciated by you as art. I > think you're agreeing with me, though, Graywolf! It seems that you're > saying that it didn't seem artful to you at first, then as you looked > at it, you gradually made a connection with it (and possibly the > artist), and ~to you~ the piece became art. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
