On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Technotranscendence wrote:
> The reason to label anything is to differentiate it from other things so as
> to have an easier time understanding it and communicating about it. (The
> former is more important than the latter.)
>
i have to agree. after all, i've participated in discussing many
"idle" concepts myself; like esoteric mathematics, i always felt finer
distinctions will turn out to be useful in some unforseen way.
however, the question involved here -- distinguishing art from
non-art -- is hellishly complex. do we define art based on whatever most
people call art, or discover it through studying a finite number of
"established" art works? perhaps we may design a definition for art to
reap the most benefit -- but in what spheres of influence?
old theories of tolstoy and santayana come to mind ... but it
seems new trends are always dead-set to shatter whatever commonality we
have perceived so far. ultimately, perhaps art is a just a tautology --
whatever we deem art ends up becoming art.
i don't pretend to be objective; explicitly or implicitly, i too
operate under some set of criteria, distinguishing art from other phenomena.
yet, it often seems that my tastes tend to run counter to the mainstream.
extrapolating a few generations into the future (ignoring the obvious
inconveniences of the singularity), i can picture a time when "consensus"
works of art would seem decidedly un-artly to me. what recourse would i
have then? like the lone sane man on a mad planet, would i declare that i
alone knew what art is?
> I would not confuse art with design. The shirt I'm wearing now -- a Perry
> Ellis short sleeve -- has a design I like on it. In fact, it's one of my
> favorite shirts. Yet I would not label it a work of art. It is pleasing to
> my eyes and comfortable to wear, but it is not art. I value it, yet I do
> not call it or classify it as art.
>
> By the same token, there are things or works which I do classify as art,
> which I do not value or like. Some of these art works I'm even repulsed by.
> Yet I still believe them to be art.
>
> You see, something can be art without being valued by someone. Someone can
> even agree something is art, yet not like it and not want to experience it
> ever again. Someone can love something, yet know it is not art.
>
perhaps i implicitly (and subconsciously) operated under the
association of art with intellectual status. nonetheless, if only for
practical reasons, perhaps we'd do better to abandon the concept of "art"
as we know it and just stick with personal taste. i know it may be
intellectually lazy, but it's not obvious to me what we would lose by such
a move.
-x
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:42 MDT