Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Florya
It's been an interesting discussion.
It seems that our opinions on what is art fall into two camps.
1. Those who view art's main value in it's physical manifestation, with all the qualitative judgements that can bring.
and
2. Those who see art more as a philosophical concept in which it is the process of producing the art, from conception to completion, that is more important.
As you may have guessed, I fall loosly into the second category, but I also have a more existential view.
To put it simply, I believe that art is only truly valid in the phase from conception to completion. I believe that once a work of art has reached the stage where it truly expresses the artists inspiration and is judged by the artist to be complete, from that moment on it is dead. A cast off. Like a dried leaf falling from a tree.
I know I'm probably in a minority of one, and I could easily spend many hours in front of this keyboard trying to explain what art means to me. But it would be a pointless excercise, because in my philosophy, what art means to its consumer is irrelevant.
This has really been an eye opener to me. This discussion has forced me to really think hard about one of the most important things in my life, and I feel a lot better for it.
|
it has been good.
The only issue I have with your personal crfiteria for whan art is truly ART is that this view negates the many many people who either cannot make art, do not know how, or do not want to. Those people's experiences with the artwork once it is "complete" are as valid as the artist's, and can collectively become something so much more important and true and real than anything the artist ever conceived. For example, the Arc du Triumph, Taj Mahal, Mona Lisa, the Statue of Liberty, etc. These and many others are far more meaningful in their post-completion life, than in their pre-completion life.
Like I said before ART as opposed to art, exists only when a human mind is contemplating/experiencing the work of art.