Subject:
|
Re: To No One's Big Surprise...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Aug 2007 05:06:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6631 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Magno wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Of course, that is not to mention the inherent flaws in the poll...;-)
Oops.
JOHN
|
Thats my job.
THIS poll was FLAWED!!!
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.75&soc=-4.00
(thats me)
and my favorite question:
Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything shouldn’t be considered art at
all.
man, i wish there was an option greater than STRONGLY AGREE
I would have checked that one twice.
|
Why, exactly, must art represent anything?
|
This reminds me of a debate loooong ago on RTL (search LEGOdeath, IIRC) about
art. The rub is in the defining of “art”. What is art? Because if art is
anything, then art is everything, and therefore nothing-- that is, the term
is meaningless. I tend to agree with Chris; the term “abstract art” is a sort
of oxymoron. Why the need to qualify the term “abstract”?
To me, art is something created that lifts the human spirit. It celebrates
beauty in a way as to inspire the soul. Art isn’t simply expression or
commentary, nor merely a vehicle to create controversy or conversation. It
doesn’t necessary need to represent something, but needs to reflect the
creativity and the vision of beauty of the artist. Thus, I’d call Duchamp a
smart-ass rather than an artist. The problem lies when artists start
commentating on art, rather than create art as I see it.
You could say that is a relative statement, but somehow I believe art transcends
opinion.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
