Subject: RE: Daumier-Smith and Empathy
ZazieZazie@hetnet.nl
Date: Fri Jul 27 2001 - 12:49:02 GMT
Christopher Robin said:
> In short, this discussion about readers saying absolutes about
>what an author meant is a worthwhile one, but not to be overdone.
"Tim O'Connor" <tim@roughdraft.org> remarked:
Good point. Moderation in this subject area, especially, would save
us from a lot of blood that has been shed on this here battlefield.
So, not, to draw more blood, but i have something which
has been bothering me ever since I was 13 years old and dragged by our
arts teacher to a really horrid exhibition of Northern Swedish
sculpture (yes, yes, I went to one these modern schools witihout classes but 'groups' and assignments but no tests
and drama lessons but also capital punisment) and this exhibition really spoiled my appetite for art for quite some time (not the capital punishment but the exhibition), which brings me to the following question:
Is art really art when nobody says it's art?
Suppose you have this writer/sculptor/photographer who does creative work, but nobody likes
it. But he writes, paints etc like crazy and besides his girlfriend/wife nobody ever says anything positive
about it, and she only does it to save the peace/relationship.
Can we still say that it's art? This is an ongoing discussion between me and my friends, some of which are a little to optimistic in this respect, I guess.
I myself think that if NOBODY says what you do is art, it's not art.
I know it's difficult to give a 'scientific' definition of art, but i would like your opinion about this.
Z.
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 15:29:40 GMT