Well, as I said earlier, I wonder then if something can be art, regardless of the intention of it's creator.
Conversely, I'd wonder about something that only it's creator considers art, and no one else. That could end up being a very narrow definition of art. I can't help but think that some sort of consensus is necessary. Problem is, if that's true, how is the art/no-art or artist/not-artist decision arrived at? By numbers? Surely not. By ~who~ is making the decision? Dear me, no, that would be elitist. Some combination of the two? I guess... Keep in mind, I'm not making pronouncements here, but wondering aloud (or at least in print - but I'm talking as I type) what this is all about. I mean, to use more examples, Canadians on this list may remember the furor a few years ago when the National Art Gallery bought a piece (with taxpayers' money) called Field of Fire. It was by some well-known artist. It was a very tall (over 10 feet) canvas with three vertical lines painted on it. I think the outer two were blue and the middle one was red. Whatever, its cost was in the millions. Naturally there was a furor. Basically, what the Gallery said is that it was a good investment, and that sort of shut most people up. But I was amazed that there were so many who said "that ain't art", so we shouldn't be buying it. Funny, but not a single critic or artist said that, though. I thought it was art, just art that I couldn't appreciate (as opposed to the urinating woman in a previous post - I just thought that wasn't art). Now, I have to disagree with you on the "good art/bad art" thing having something to do with how many people agree that a thing's art. (if I'm mis-reading you, let me know). Surely, whatever else it is, the value of art (I mean artistic value, not monetary) is not a democratic thing, is it? Art's "goodness" is intrinsic, no? This is very confusing. I have to say, though, I'm progressing from a couple of months back, when I tried to say that I wasn't an artist. I now think that I ~may~ be an artist, but if I am, I'm just not a very good one. enjoying this discussion, though! <g> regards, frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > IMHO, it is art is if the creator thinks it is art. > > That does not mean, however, than anyone else in the world is going to agree > with them. > > But to me that lack of agreement then falls into the realm of having a > discussion of whether it is "good" or "bad" art. And that is a purely subjective > thing. Great art is different -- it is a consensus -- a lot of people, usually > over a time, have agreed it is good art. I.E. It has achieved a form of > universality -- it appeals to a lot of people. > > Art is so subjective that discussion about what it is, whether it is good, > etc. are sort of pointless. And I think that is the whole point. > > Marnie aka Doe -- "Hell is others" -Jean Paul Sartre
