Print

Print


CUriously, Andy Warhol had the same definition
as Marshall McLuhan. I wonder who got there first?

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/34774.html

Cheers,
Peter
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 seems
>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 clearly
>stated.
>
>
>
>
>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 this
>>question is more or less a tautology and hardly anything very new:  A
>>work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of art,
>>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 "good
>>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.
>>
>>Carrol
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
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