I think it is too general.
Art requires an artist.
Much of my prior life involved the direct expression of action in others
lives. None but the sickest of critics would have directly considered it
art. However, art has been created describing actions much like mine. The
most horrible direct vision is not art but an artist can create a
representation of that horrible vision which is art. The most beautiful
vision awaits an artist to become art. There is a necessary seperation
between vision and art. An artist is needed to render the vision
(inspiration, muse?). Art is not a natural occurence, it is an artifact of
human action. It just is not an artifact of every human expression. Every
human is not an artist.
Given the above, whale sounds are not directly music but collecting and
editing them into a recorded form can be musical and art. The whales are
not the artists though.
>From near the shadow
McIntosh, NM, USA
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, August 17, 2001 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of art
>The definition is actually easy. If this has already come up, forgive the
>Anything you do is an expression.
>Once your expression influences someone beside yourself, it becomes art.
>6 weeks till the big day,