From: |  | [log in to unmask][log in to unmask]
<BR>writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Maybe it's kind of like the general election, in
which your vote has a value, but isn't likely [...]36_19Aug200120:39:[log in to unmask]
9022 75 21_Re: Definition of art9_Jon [log in to unmask], 20 Aug 2001 21:32:47 +0100599_- I said:
>> Let's say I walk down the street and shoot someone dead. By your
>> definition this is Art.
Michael replied:
> It would, by my definition, only be art if someone, who saw you
accomplish
> the shooting (hopefully of an Amy Lowell scholar), were in some way
changed
> by it on a fundamental level. Thus, the shooting of a Vietnamese soldier
on
> T.V. was art, and so was the act of Buddhist immolation. I can live
(forgive
> the poor taste of that word) with that as a definition. What we are
really
> [...]47_20Aug200121:32:[log in to unmask]
9098 13 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 20 Aug 2001 18:28:02 EDT523_- I probably shouldn't wander into this without brushing up on Aristotle, Aquinas, and a few dozen others. But hey, if I insisted on doing things like this right, I'd never get around to doing them at all. So I'll pitch in off the cuff.
Art is that which captures the intangible meaning(s) behind thing(s). Depiction becomes art only to the extent that it includes something of the intangible along with the depiction. Art can of course exist entirely without depiction, or with non-representational depiction. [...]32_20Aug200118:28:[log in to unmask]
9112 85 21_Re: Definition of art9_Jon [log in to unmask], 20 Aug 2001 23:24:01 +0100609_- Steve wrote:
> Now, here's the problem: I think TSE wanted to say not only that he was
> judging art by his pet standard (Classicism), but, more importantly, that
HIS
> standard was "better" than other standards (better than, for instance, the
> standard of WCW). Because if all standards are arbitrary and equally
valid,
> it seems to me impossible to say that any particular thing is "not art"
> (since by SOME standard you could find a basis for which THAT thing WOULD
be
> art). So Jon, even if I agree that art is defined by [...]47_20Aug200123:24:[log in to unmask]
9198 313 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 20 Aug 2001 19:51:42 EDT296_- --part1_88.b25a256.28b2fc8e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jon,
Very eloquently put (below).
Steve, I'm going to answer your post but needed to think about some of the
questions you asked.
pat37_20Aug200119:51:[log in to unmask]
9512 47 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 20 Aug 2001 19:56:38 EDT486_- --part1_a2.189dc8ab.28b2fdb6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 8/20/01 6:29:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:
> Either that, or art is merely a term one subjectively applies to expressions
> that one finds interesting. Or, there's a much better definition out there
> that I haven't seen, or have seen and not understood.
>
> Tom K [...]37_20Aug200119:56:[log in to unmask]
9560 19 21_Re: Definition of [log in to unmask], 21 Aug 2001 00:23:52 EDT637_- In a message dated 01-08-20 16:45:02 EDT, you write:
<< You've raised a very Qt |
