As Andy also said "Pop is about liking things." Which also brings to
mind what Miles Davis once said when a critic confronted him about the
music he was making in the early 80's - "People like shit." His accent
was on the word LIKE. But any combination will do,
On May 25, 2005, at 10:51 PM, Peter Montgomery wrote:
> CUriously, Andy Warhol had the same definition
> as Marshall McLuhan. I wonder who got there first?
> Francis Gavin wrote:
>> Am not seeing that argument at all. Not subjectivist at all. Appears
>> to be
>> more of an attack on non-artists as Definers of Art. Unspoken message
>> to be that while many things are depicted as art and defined by
>> someone as
>> art, few of those things are art and most of those who define,
>> lowbrow or
>> high, have valid definitions. Carey knows what art is not. He may
>> know what
>> it is, but it's a case-by-case definition. His criteria is never
>> on 5/22/05 1:26 PM, Carrol Cox at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>> What is art?
>>> I don't know about the rest of his arguments, but Carey's answer to
>>> question is more or less a tautology and hardly anything very new:
>>> work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of
>>> although it may be a work of art only for that one person.” Any other
>>> definition, incidentally, makes a hash of any claim that Work A is
>>> art," while Work B is "bad art." If "Trees" isn't art, then to say
>>> it is
>>> bad art is incoherent. Moreover, if it isn't art, then it can't be
>>> judged by any set of artistic criteria.
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.17 - Release Date: 5/25/2005