Dan,
On a serious note, I think it depends on how one defines "art" for
him/herself. In a very broad scope, I see two main versions:
"aesthetically pleasing creation" or "thought-provoking creation".
I'd say that the "classic art" is most likely (or mostly) falls under the
former category.
A considerable portion of "conteporary art" falls under the latter one.
At the museum, there was a session of discussion with the museum staff
right in front of this composition (aimed primarily at kids). - After all
kids ran out of questions, I asked what makes this being "art". The lady
essentially escaped answering that question by posing thetorical questions
in response. Basically, the point was it provokes thinking.
And I agree with that point.
Does it consitute art or not, I am not sure. Not everything that provokes
thoughts (and in science I deal with those thinkgs frequently) is...
Igor
Daniel J. Matyola Fri, 02 Sep 2016 12:56:19 -0700 wrote:
\On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Igor PDML-StR <[email protected]> wrote:
It is "Contemporary Art".
Sometimes, it seems that "contemporary art" is an oxymoron.
--
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.
