Posted: Jul 02, 2014 6:08 am
Thommo wrote:Let's keep it straight, you support Duchamp's view that anything done by an artist is art, correct? That is completely fine. That's an opinion and you are free to it, that does not automatically disqualify differing opinions.
If you want to go further and present it as an "argument" and having some basis in fact rather than opinion then the burden of proof, as I'm sure you're aware, is on the claimant, not the disputant.
However, in order to qualify as a "disputant", a person would need to present an alternative definition that made more sense.
Could you point to where in this thread this has been provided?
Duchamp's definition stands - not because it' exalts art; on the contrary, it scythes away much artistic pretension of Grand Meaning - because there is no competing definition. People often object to it, but can't seem to elucidate a better definition.
I say that Banksy's Facebook trolling is art because it is a thing done by an artist; on what grounds do you refute it?
Or, to get back to Duchamp, why is a hunk of marble carved into a shape "art", whilst a urinal with "R. Mutt" scrawled on it not?
Upon what basis are you making your distinction?