[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

...If the intention is to express beauty?

If the artist's intent is to express/communicate/show the beauty (or ugliness) of an object or setting, is the subject itself art?

Again, an object or setting is what it is. If an individual percieves the object or setting and is moved, motivated, struck by an idea, etc. which motivates them to express whichever it is in a visual manner, i.e., to make a visual statement to "express/communicate/show the beauty (or ugliness) of an object or setting", it is that output, whether it be a painting, photo, drawing...that is the art object. The object or setting that the art object is based on is the subject of the object.

Can observing a heron be an artistic appreciation, or can the art only be perceived by Audubon and conveyed in his work?

Certainly we all observe various things which give rise to an admiration of them that is based on artistic sensibilities that we all possess to one degree or another. And it's not unreasonable to view a sunset and think of it as one of nature's works of art - I do. But I'm limiting myself in this discussion to works of art in the generally accepted sense, art created by humans.

How 'bout some feedback on my responses to your questions so far? I've been putting in some earnest thought and time in trying to adress them as I understand them. Do they strike you as reasonable or art snob BS?

..