MFA?

wrote:
So? What do I care what interests you?


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.

Photography is not the only thing that is exactly like a fossil, I
suppose. ;-)

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:35:00 up 4 days, 12:16, 3 users, load average: 4.44, 4.29, 4.27

No, of course it isn't. Why bring that up?

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

Ignore him, please.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

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.

"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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.