Print

Print


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?
>
> 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
>