On 8/23/07, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This idea I have to like it for it to be art is pretty damn self-centered.
1) I ~never~ said that one must ~like~ something for it to be art. Indeed, one can find a piece to be repulsive and revolting, yet one may consider it art. 2) I say that the art experience is subjective to each viewer. You say that's self-centred. I guess it is. That's what "subjective" is all about, isn't it? > The world did not exist before I was born. When I go to sleep the world > disappears. You are only a figment of my imagination. The only reason you > don't agree with me is because I am paranoid, if I weren't I would never > imagine anyone that did not agree with me. Nothing exists if I am not there > to see it. That's just silly. I'm talking about art theory, not ontology. I'm not saying that corporeal things don't exist when we don't observe them. I'm not saying that a creation does or doesn't ~exist~ depending on my observation of it, I'm just saying that such a creation may or may not be ~art~, depending on how or whether it moves me. I'm also not saying that an object can't be art ~for you~ if you so consider it, regardless of whether I consider it art. > There is a word for that kind of psychosis but I can not think of it right at > the moment. There's a word for pretty much everything... ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
