Hey, I know that trying to define art is an exercise in futility, but I still can have fun refuting the arguments of the ones that are trying to define it ;-)
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:29 PM, frank theriault <knarftheria...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Doug Franklin > <jehosep...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> >> IMO, one cannot reasonably define art solely in terms of the artist, the >> work, or the intent of the artist, any more than one can reasonably define >> art solely in terms of the viewer/recipient/?. Art is a collaboration >> between the "artist", the "work", and the "viewer". Both humans must be >> engaged, though not necessarily satisfied, for the work to achieve the >> status of "art". > > Let me interject this "what is art?" thread for a moment to let you > all know that I'm going to go out just now to take a few photos. > > I don't give a rat's ass if anyone calls them art or not. > > Have a great day! > > ;-) > > cheers, > frank > > > > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > > -- > 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. > -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ -- 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.
