----Original Message Follows----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Definition of art
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:55:14 -0400



'And my question would be, "How does this tell us what 'art' IS as opposed 
to how we agree on it or not?"'
*********
My point is that we tell ourselves what 'art' is. Can art be art until it is 
acclaimed as such? It's like Schroedinger's cat, we don't know until we look 
and we may each see something different when we do look. Eliot and others 
who produce something they intend to be art, find comaraderie in the 
community of other artists and join the community of those who study and 
arbitrate have really helped themselves toward creating their own 
definitions of what 'art' is. They are on the road to making their 
intentions acclaimed by two of the three audience communities, thus creating 
a support system in which their intentions will thrive. This is the politics 
of art, creating "isms" which spring from the definitions like so many 
blackbirds baked in a pie. The buy-in from the remaining audience community 
comes when they begin obtaining, maybe even demanding, information that 
explains what the other two communities are acclaiming.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp