Posted by Count Torby on March 22, 1997 at 11:04:34:
In Reply to: Re: art, reality and fiction posted by Manillo on March 21, 1997 at 19:01:49:
:
: : After all, there are definitions of art, like impressionism,
: : expressionism, cubism, classicism etc. You also have different
: : kinds of art like sculpture, painting, music, poetry, writing
: : stories and so on.
: I don't agree that these are definitions. It's just a classification,
: and I guess there are controversies as to how this is actually
: applicable to art.
: : But the deepest meaning of art, how is that to be defined?
: : Or, how do you really define if something is art or not?
: : Greetings from count Torby
: I don't think that art is really in the creating process,
: but in the observing/experiencing process.
: It's an intrinsically subjective thing, and my opinion is
: that what at least one person considers to be art is art.
Aaah! Now we are getting somewehere... Beauty lies in the eye
of the beholder. Then nature must be the greatest piece
of art ever made, and the art of a child must be the most
beautiful the childs parents have seen. Then one can wonder
if it is totally futile to write about art at all, because
when you do that you give expression to your own way of experiencing
art. If this in fact is futile, what of all the artcritics, who by
the way often is talking bullshit and thus showing that they
do not understand what they look at or hear. Then on the other hand,
would not the world be a bit emptier if there were not jokers like me
who writes about art and culture sometimes?
Greetings from Count Torby