Posted: Apr 23, 2011 12:34 am
tuco wrote:Less weight in regards what? To: art is what developed taste recognizes as such definition? Of course, no argument from me here. Just, I could care less about the weight of developed taste since I do not recognize such definition as it is arbitrary and comes from those with developed taste.
Define art ..
Straight from the fount of all knowledge:
Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.
This pretty much means that anything can be labeled "art" and there is no coherent argument that can refute that labelling. Duchamp's Fountain is art because Duchamp said it was. You can say you don't like it, you can present an argument that it sucks, but there is no way to remove it from the category "art".
"I don't like that artwork." is a statement of personal taste that requires no argument.
"That artwork sucks." is a value judgement that must be backed up with an argument to be taken seriously.
"That's not art." is just vacuous.
Now can you answer my question?
Nicko wrote: The thing is: the monkey is not an artist, yet the paintings can be considered art. Who is the artist?
