In a message dated 8/22/2007 9:23:36 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This again, does it have to be good to be art? ============ Nope, art is art, good or bad. Just like photography is photography, good or bad. What people consider good art is entirely subjective. But let's go to great art, great art is usually universal enough that lots and lots and lots of people have said that subjectively, to them, it is great.
So good and great art are designations arrived at by consensus. Ergo, the more universal, usually the more consensus. But this can change and does, over time. What appeals in one era, may not in a later era and vice-a-versa, things can appeal later which didn't originally. Take Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life," evidentially originally it didn't do that well at the box office, and didn't get great reviews. But over time it has become a classic. Elvis on black velvet is art. To most of us, bad art, to some good art. But it's still art, someone painted it. However, we've had this good/subjective discussion before. Kind of futile isn't it? Marnie aka Doe ;-) ************************************** 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
