On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > The logic of your statement is that there is no definition of art, or > beauty, that is not entirely subjective. >
There are many definitions of art, and all of them are in some way subjective. But there can be a consensus. > Is that qualitative judgment, "in the eye of the beholder", a product > of nature or nurture? > Your choices are far too limiting. It's a product of many things: environment, experience, nature, nurture and more. It's quite simple really. If it's pleasing to the eye, it's beautiful. To one individual, that makes it personal art. If the consensus of opinion finds it beautiful, it can be said to be art. But that is still somewhat subjective. Because we are unique individuals, the subjectivity of these kinds of judgments can never be eliminated completely. However, over time, the consensus can become very broad and far reaching. Paul > G > > On Sep 13, 2007, at 2:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> It is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. >> Paul >> -------------- Original message ---------------------- >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> What is "sheer beauty"? >>> >>> G >>> >>> On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>>> Good pictures come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes it's the >>>> compositon that makes a shot memorable. But a fascinating subject >>>> can achieve that as well. And of course sheer beauty is always >>>> worth a second look. In truth, there is no single, narrow >>>> definition. >>>> Paul > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
