Art question
28 December 2007 09:15If something purporting to be art requires an explanation that it is, indeed, art... is it, really?
Not an explanation of what it is about, but an explanation that says, "Yes, this is really art."
If something purporting to be art requires an explanation that it is, indeed, art... is it, really?
Not an explanation of what it is about, but an explanation that says, "Yes, this is really art."
no subject
Date: 28 Dec 2007 16:02 (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Dec 2007 16:18 (UTC)"Art" is one of those ambiguous, and often highly subjective, terms. I'm not sure exactly what standard would need to be applied to qualify something as art. And, I think, there is good art and bad art. Something might be properly classified as "art" but still be at best forgettable. Good art, I surmise, would outlast its own time and purpose and spread its appeal across generations and even cultures.
I would be suspect of anything that proclaimed itself to be "Art" in the same way I would if something was described as "the greatest comedy of all time" or "the only painting exhibit you need to see in the 21st Century." But it something outlives its own hype, it may be worth considering as a work of art.
Dissenting opinions are welcome!
no subject
Date: 28 Dec 2007 17:05 (UTC)Your second paragraph reminds me of something I'm asked frequently. As a recognized, for whatever reason, "expert on national anthems", I'm often asked "what is the best national anthem?" I basically state the above when I answer the question on my FAQ page. My summary is that the best anthem is the one held most dear by the listener, I guess a somewhat diplomatic answer so that no one's country is offended. :) (I'm even hesitant to answer sometimes what my personal favourite national anthems are as, being a recognized "expert", it may be seen that my favourite = the best.)
no subject
Date: 28 Dec 2007 17:21 (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Dec 2007 19:15 (UTC)