On 13/05/2010, P N Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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.
I think the artist can call any work they deem to be art, art, whether the rest of us agree is moot it seems. I see examples of this regularly but the one that sticks in my mind most is the exhibit that I stumbled upon in a very well regarded Sydney photographic gallery space quite a few years back now. This particular exhibit consisted of 20+ large prints of images of a CRT TV screen showing daytime soap opera clips. Lots of screen scan lines, low contrast, often indistinct scenes, nothing otherwise coherent or interesting but hey it was presented as art. "He who dares art" I call it. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
