Marek asked: why should the definition of art be specific?
Whoo. This is a big one.
I don't necessarily believe that art can be defined as something specific, and I'm not sure that I want it to be specifically definable even if it were possible, but hypothetically, art's definition should be specific so that we can classify objects as art.
If art is truly indefinable, then the acts of lacing one's shoes, of brushing one's teeth, microwaving Easy Mac, would be art. Art cannot be allowed to be mundane - there are too many people who are too invested, driven by, obsessed with, centered around, alive for art for this to be a possibility. Art cannot possibly encompass these inane acts, because then it would be impossible to appreciate art in the first place. If you eat chocolate ice cream after evey meal, you get sick of chocolate ice cream. Even if you buy really really really good ice cream one day, you will still be sick of it. Similarly, if all acts are art, then people would be desensitized to art, even if it is good art. They would think of it as ordinary, commonplace.
Art needs a definition, or people need a definition for art, because if art is truly indefinable, then many things unartistic are "art," and good art would lose it's luster.
Am I right about art losing it's luster? Would good art stand out to the viewer even if everything they did, down to buttoning their shirt, was considered "art"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment