what is art
Posted 14/03/2010 - 17:55
Link
thoramay wrote:
Having enjoyed a discussion with Stepan on creating art in photography, I would be interested in a concensus of what is art.
Art in and of itself is an object or performance purposely designed without utility other than to provoke an intellectual or emotional response in the viewer/reader/listener.Having enjoyed a discussion with Stepan on creating art in photography, I would be interested in a concensus of what is art.
Art is not artifact, nor are artists necessarily artizans, though they may be both.
An artifact may have artistic merit, but if it has utility it is not art.
A performance may be aesthetically pleasing, but if it has an ulterior goal (such as a sport) then it is not art.
Noone has this issue when trying to distinguish a textbook or instruction manual from a fictional novel or poem, nor when trying to distinguish a gymnast from a ballet dancer, so why do people get so hung up about it in representational art? The distinction is the same.
Cheers, Steve
Posted 15/03/2010 - 14:51
Link
Steve. Thank you for adding to this debate. Because the usual courtesy expected on this forum has been breached, I would ask that you and all people support the moderator's request that this thread should be deemed to have run its course.
regards. Thoramay
regards. Thoramay
Posted 15/03/2010 - 15:08
Link
Critical-i wrote:
Art is not artifact, nor are artists necessarily artizans, though they may be both.
An artifact may have artistic merit, but if it has utility it is not art.
A performance may be aesthetically pleasing, but if it has an ulterior goal (such as a sport) then it is not art.
Noone has this issue when trying to distinguish a textbook or instruction manual from a fictional novel or poem, nor when trying to distinguish a gymnast from a ballet dancer, so why do people get so hung up about it in representational art? The distinction is the same.
I couldn't agree more.
thoramay wrote:
Having enjoyed a discussion with Stepan on creating art in photography, I would be interested in a concensus of what is art.
Art in and of itself is an object or performance purposely designed without utility other than to provoke an intellectual or emotional response in the viewer/reader/listener.Having enjoyed a discussion with Stepan on creating art in photography, I would be interested in a concensus of what is art.
Art is not artifact, nor are artists necessarily artizans, though they may be both.
An artifact may have artistic merit, but if it has utility it is not art.
A performance may be aesthetically pleasing, but if it has an ulterior goal (such as a sport) then it is not art.
Noone has this issue when trying to distinguish a textbook or instruction manual from a fictional novel or poem, nor when trying to distinguish a gymnast from a ballet dancer, so why do people get so hung up about it in representational art? The distinction is the same.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
618 posts
17 years
Confusion abounds.
We are oblidged to grow old, but growing up is mandatory.
thoramay.