If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
No, of course it isn't. Why bring that up?
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Jörgen Persson wrote: wrote: We cannot have a situation where 'what's art to me may not be art to another'. The criteria used must be 'philosophical', and cannot be based on a survey or on public opinion. What makes art 'art' is that it is: Wakey wakey -- art relates to our culture. There is not /one/ definition of art. There are different cultures around the world and they are constantly changing. Still... we have to be able to talk about art. Let us do that. Many art institutions of today are /not/ interested in the art itself but on its impact on society. What about your art definition then? 1) Representational (more or less) 2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter Sorry... It does not say anything about the impact on society. What does it say? That a child's painting is art but Cindy Sherman's photographs are not art? That definition does not interest me. How true, look at what historians classify as art (artifacts)..common vessels found on the sea floor used to transport goods, from Greece, Rome - etc. These were things that effected culture and were taken for granted during the time they were used. Just because one does not deem something to have a philosophical value to oneself, does not for all time declassify it as art. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
These were not 'works of art' than and they aren't now. The vases were
just vases and are still vases. They are cultural artifacts, that's why they are valuable. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Just because one does not deem something to have a philosophical value
to oneself, does not for all time declassify it as art." You misunderstand. To say whether something is 'art' or not one must have some reasonable criteria. Agreed? 'Yes', you say. OK then, why do we not call a fossil 'art'? 1. Because it's natural, not man-made. 2. Because it has no 'subject matter'. 3. Because it depends on the existence of something else (the bones of a dead creature) to be created. It is linked causally to the bones of the dead creature. It forms around them. 1. Art is man-made, not natural. 2. Art has 'subject matter'/ 3. Art does not depend on the existence of something else to be created. It is not linked causally to the existence of anything else for its content. One can paint a unicorn or other fabulous creature. One will not find a fossil of a unicorn. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Jörgen Persson" wrote in message
... wrote: 1) Representational (more or less) 2) Not causally linked to anything else for its subject matter Sorry... It does not say anything about the impact on society. [...] At first glance you seem to be saying that art must conform to some political neccessity. Can you elaborate and tell us what photographs fulfill your requisites? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On 12/7/2004 8:49 AM jjs spake thus:
wrote: I supplied a philosophical criterion of what can be art. Photography CANNOT be art. It doesn't meet the criteria. Photography is exactly like a fossil, and a fossil cannot be art. Please look to Man Ray for photographs that speak to the art world. I am certain that will just ruin your day. Um, are you referring to his photographs or his photo*grams*? Two different animals, one art, one not. -- Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
David Nebenzahl wrote: On 12/7/2004 8:49 AM jjs spake thus: wrote: I supplied a philosophical criterion of what can be art. Photography CANNOT be art. It doesn't meet the criteria. Photography is exactly like a fossil, and a fossil cannot be art. Please look to Man Ray for photographs that speak to the art world. I am certain that will just ruin your day. Um, are you referring to his photographs or his photo*grams*? Two different animals, one art, one not. Photograms _ARE_ photographs. No difference. Just as there's no difference between you and a trolling crossposter... -- Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|