| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper Janssen writes:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:25:13 GMT, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Boy-oh-boy! I can't tell you how delighted I am to read that! I am _sick • to
> > death_ of that Postmodernist "all is art" nonsense! Such a definition seems
> > to imply that anything requiring or allowing interpretation is art, and is by
> > extension roughly equivalent to saying that nothing is art.
>
> Yup. There is no useful definition of art. "All is art" or "none is
> art" are no less useful than any others you care to offer.
Perhaps there's a miscommunication in progress here; obviously there's no
"inherent" definition of art, if only because the term is itself a human
construct. However, it is falacious to suggest that, as a construct, art
cannot be defined for discourse in a useful way.
As I've mentioned previously in this thread, I'm not qualified to posit such
a definition, but that doesn't mean a definition cannot be put forth.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Yes. But it won't be a useful definition. Picasso was not considered art in his time. Van Gogh wasn't. (let alone _good_ art, of course). Now will you argue that a definition of art that changes continually with time can be a useful one? The (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Yup. There is no useful definition of art. "All is art" or "none is art" are no less useful than any others you care to offer. Jasper (24 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
