[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

...If I felt you were not putting thought into your responses I wouldn't continue asking questions. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, this discussion can certainly impact the way I think about art, and I'm greatful for the consideration you are giving my questions.

Great. And I'm greatful to discuss an interest of mine with another interested individual (and I'm certainly not trying to prove you wrong either).

I'm not sure whether I agree with your response: 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. I kind of agree with what you are saying, but I cannot keep from thinking: "If that is so, then the only way to appreciate the art in an object/setting is to reproduce it" which I cannot agree with.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm referring to "art" as that which is man-made. When you say "the art in an object/setting", my tendency, if I'm understanding what you are saying (and there's a strong possibility that I may not be) is to respond by saying that the "art" is not an intrinsic element that an object/setting "contains". As you say, our perceptions are subjective and where one might see beauty, another might see ugliness and yet another might be completely indifferent. In any case, what many don't realize is that much art is not about beauty nor ugliness.

That old cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" applies to ugliness and indifference also. I maintain that art, in the scenario you present, is the result of an individual's perception of the object/setting and that the art "object" is the resultant manifestation, in the form of a painting or sculpture, of the individual's response to the "subject" that motivated them.

As I agreed, sure, a sunset can be looked at as a work of art by nature. And a pile of beer bottles in a rainy alley can be looked at as art by somebody also - hell, anybody can look at anything and appreciate it as art if they're moved to.

But my interests lie within the realm of art produced by humans: paintings, drawings, sculpture - looking at it, touching it, walking around/through it, sometimes wondering what the hell the artist was thinking and learning something about that artist and gaining an appreciation of his work - or not , other times turning away in boredom or disgust, completely uninterested.

In any case, I have no more interest in convincing anyone to become more interested in and knowledgeable about art than I am with informing a person's taste in music, literature, whaaat evuh. And, truth be told, it is very unlike me to even discuss art much less get caught up in a pissing match with those who have nothing to say but that modern art is crap.

So thanks for participating in this "rational" exchange of opinions and ideas- sure as hell beats name calling, insults and categorical condemnation.

..