2010/5/18 Tom C <[email protected]>: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:55 PM, steve harley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> another problem with requiring "intent" is how does the viewer know about >> the intent ... >> >> is it always obvious? is any intent sufficient? must one meet or learn about >> the artist as well as experience the art? what if we perceive intent where >> there is none? what if we perceive no intent where there is some? what about >> art that deliberately manipulates the perception of intent? >> > > Well I have my simple answer to that. > > 1. I can tell art even when it's art I don't like. There's a ton of > art that I do not like or that I actually detest, or I think 'why > would anybody do that?', yet I will admit it is art. > 2. In my book if there is no intent or if the shown item (assuming > we're limiting the discussion to things visible) displays no intent, > then I'll conclude logically that there was no intent, so I don't > define it as art. > > Put another way, if the maker of something deliberately produces > something that is so incongruous or disharmonious, that ist's devoid > of perceivable intent, then I have every right to view it in that way. > I would likely view it as junk and not art. > > I would also venture to say that a random sampling of the general > populace would view it the same way and that virtually the only ones > that would view such a work as art, is the art theorists themselves. > > Really I've tried to see it from their point of view but I couldn't > get my head up that far. > > Everyone of course is free to disagree.
I couldn't agree more. My thoughts exactly. Cheers Ecke -- 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.
