And to finish my thought... On Dec 18, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Stan Halpin wrote:
> Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the example of mobiles: once "art", > now the baby-crib attachment to keep ankle-biters occupied. > We watch Antiques Roadshow on PBS. The other evening they had a Calder > miniature mobile, appraised at $1M. My mother-in-law's caregiver (NOT a > sophisticate) could not stop laughing at the the thought that someone would > pay that much for such a piece of junk. > > I like the notion that Art is the use of some medium to evoke reactions in > others. To make them feel and/or think. The viewer, reader, listener, etc. > may not grasp the artist's motivations, his or her feelings or ideas that > went into some artistic expression, but the Artist wants to evoke something. > [Not necessarily disbelief and laughter as in my example.] > > One thing that makes it all so hard to define and commercialize is that the > viewing/reading/listening public may well not understand the language being > spoken by the Artist. Which is why Art Appreciation courses used to be > offered in some Universities. And this is why I disagree with the notion that "if it takes more words to describe, it must be of lower quality." It might also be the case that the public doesn't understand that artist's language. > > stan > > >>> From: PDML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts >>> >>> John wrote: >>> >>>>> A comment was made that it's "art" when a photograph needs a >>>>> paragraph >>>>> to explain what it's about. >>> >>> "The more words there are on a gallery wall next to a >>> picture, the worse the picture." >>> - Gustave Flaubert >>> >> -- 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.
