On May 12, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Tom C wrote:
Yet, is that a definition of art or artistry?
It's but one of many. There are no hard and fast definitions, no hard
and fast rules. However, I would say that if a work is both completely
devoid of any evidence of skill and it fails to invoke any kind of
response, then it is not art. Art can include both technical
masterpieces and emotional concepts. But in the end, it is up to the
individual to decide.
When I go to a museum, I know that I am looking at the curator's
definition of art. I am, of course, free to agree or disagree with
that judgement.
On the other hand, when a work has passed the test of time and has
been deemed artful by critics whose experience spans centuries, It is
somewhat arrogant and perhaps a bit naive to question their judgement.
Paul
Tom C.
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 7:21 AM, paul stenquist <[email protected]
> wrote:
Invoking an emotional response is artistry in its highest form.
Paul
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
