Quote:
Originally Posted by DARISC
There can only be meaningful discussion of any topic if there is an agreement on a basic definition of terms. In this case, that begins with first coming to an agreement on a definition of art.
My post ##318 states how I define art as I understand it. To try to have a discussion with someone who defines it differently is pointless - unless that discussion is about the differences in our definitions of art. But until some common ground is established as far as what art even is, it's a waste of both parties time to bang away at each other about what is art and what is not from perspectives that are mutually exclusive from the start.
I doubt that you're a neanderthal and I believe that if you ever get interested in art to the extent that you decide to study it and its history in greater depth, your perspective will change a lot.
|
If you are not willing to accept examine any possible flaws in your concept of art, why should anyone else? Discussing why your definition is strong or weak could open new opportunities for appreciating art. And post #318 does not address either performance art, or the inherant art of a work's subject.
I think that art should serve me. If a work fails to speak to me, I am disinclined to make significant effort to allow it the opportunity to communicate the message the artist was working to produce. There's lots of art out there, I want to find work that speaks to me, not to find ways to allow it all to give voice. Life's too short, and until someone takes the time to show me the value of refining the flaws in my definition of art I'll remain a neanderthal.