IMO the whole what is art debate is a big wank. Does it have greater meaning? Does the viewer have to be able to understand it, or only the person who produces it? Yadda, yadda yadda...tug, tug, tug.
To me art is the product of a artisan. Whether they be a painter, sculptor, potter, stone mason, carpenter, musician or photographer. It doesn't matter. It's something produced by someone with some level of skill in their chosen craft. Deeper spiritual, metaphysical or philosophical meaning of the product of their labor is irrelevant. What they've produced is art. It's the pretentious navel gazers who have muddy the definition, and tried to make it mean something more. But that's just my opinion. YMMV :-) Cheers, Dave At 11:29 AM 27/08/2007, John Graves wrote: >Frank, > >I know Art when I see him. He is very accessible....lives just down the >road > >John G > > >ann sanfedele wrote: > > frank theriault wrote: > > > > > >> On 8/21/07, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> <snip> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Then how can it be made 'accessible' to you? If you're not prepared to > >>> put the effort into getting it, why should the people who made it have > >>> to make it easy just to suit you? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> <snip> > >> > >> Personally, I think art should be easy. > >> > >> For instance, I ~know~ this is art, because it says so right on my > >> computer screen: > >> > >> http://www.romancecollection.com/index_temp.html > >> > >> She makes it simple... > >> > >> cheers, > >> frank > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Horrors! > > > > ann -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
