[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

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.

...That's precisely what I said:
"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."

I'm simply saying that to discuss something, anything, effectively, there must be an agreement on a definition of terms. And I did begin by admitting that " Yes, to define art is tricky".

I cobbled togrther that categorization off the cuff in a PM to Jim Horton wherein we were chatting about the difficulties in discussing what "art" is, simply saying that "this is how it breaks down as I understand it", an attempt to define a structure delineating the various categories that art really does fall into. It's only that and certainly not immutable.

Do you disagree with the five categories I list and the rudimentary definitions for each?


And post #318 does not address either performance art,

No it doesn't. Up to this point I thought the discussion was about visual art. How are you defining performance art? Does it include theatre, music and dance? Or are you referring to the performance art that grew out of visual arts, pretty much bgeginning With Alan Kaprow's happenings? If so, that would broaden the boundaries of this discussion greatly.

or the inherant art of a work's subject.

I don't understand what that means. Could you rephrase it?

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.

OK fine. That's your personal statement on what you want art to do for you. Who can argue with that? Why would anyone want to argue about that? We all have our subjective preferences on everything. There could be a discussion on "subjective preferences" relating to anything - but would it really be a discussion or, in the case of art, only a list of statements saying basically "Maybe I don't know what art is, but I know what I like", "I know what art is and that's a POS, not art!", etc., etc., etc.

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.

Again, OK fine. But...it's not clear to me what your definition of art is, only how you think art "should serve me". By the way, my categorization isn't an attempt to "define" art, only a proposed structure to try to make it easier to "discuss" art.

And if you interpret anything in my responses to you to mean I think you're a neanderthal, I've really failed in trying to communicate with you!

..