Quote:
Originally Posted by Taz's Master
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.
Why would the art in a setting/object be the result of an individual's perception, but the art in a work be inherant?
|
Because, as I said, for the purposes of this discussion I'm considering art to be the physical manifestation, in the form of a painting or sculpture, of an artist's response to their perception of something. As I also said, I guess one could look at anything and declare that art is inherant in it. But what does that have to do with experiencing paintings, sculpture, etc. made by humans? That's what art historians, critics, artists and, I think, most people think of when they think of art.
Your postulate that art is inherant in all objects and settings may be totally valid. I don't know. I've never come across that line of thought and don't lnow how to deal with it in terms of my concept of the world of art. But hey! I don't know how to deal with a lot of things.