- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- 414
I hope the prolonged agonies of the thread about the "definition of art" have suggested the pointlessness of discussing art from the point of view of some inexplicable need to get everything categorized as quickly as possible. First, I would suggest not using any terms for art in general except in the most vague terms such as might apply when referring to nature and culture or theory and practice. We use the term, but we don't expect it to instantly make sense in every particular circumstance...or in some, if at all, never.
Given this hygenic removal of art from genuinely elucidatory discourse, with what do we replace it? I suggest replacing "art" with "Art" where the capital indicates an empty functional category that would turn the "Art" into a proper noun when it is supplied. So when I say "Art"...I mean all the Arts that might exist as proper nouns: Venetian Art, Late Antique Art, Surrealist Art, Tang Dynasty Art, Constructivist Art, Objectivist Art, Op Art, Ego-Futurist Art. The good thing about that is that all those proper Arts have their own definitions and there is no need for a general definition.
One category that is deliberatly left aside from Art is the art that people feel the need to complain about as in "Why do people call that art?"...the reason is that I think that is a diverse topic that needs to be approached by looking at many varieties of Art and the interpretation of Art. This also removes the "what is wrong with our culture?" line of complaint until the basic analysis has reached the point that we can recognize the unprecedented variety of objects and interpretations that are being juxtaposed in the world as it is now. I will also suggest that these juxtapositionings are fundamental in the ways that different Arts coexist and that interpretations are forced into being as useful things but with no invariant applicability.
I also recommend using real examples of Art.
Anyway...to get things started...here is an image of a tiny landscape on a black wall that was found in a villa near Pompeii:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/bsco/ho_20.192.1-.3.htm
Given this hygenic removal of art from genuinely elucidatory discourse, with what do we replace it? I suggest replacing "art" with "Art" where the capital indicates an empty functional category that would turn the "Art" into a proper noun when it is supplied. So when I say "Art"...I mean all the Arts that might exist as proper nouns: Venetian Art, Late Antique Art, Surrealist Art, Tang Dynasty Art, Constructivist Art, Objectivist Art, Op Art, Ego-Futurist Art. The good thing about that is that all those proper Arts have their own definitions and there is no need for a general definition.
One category that is deliberatly left aside from Art is the art that people feel the need to complain about as in "Why do people call that art?"...the reason is that I think that is a diverse topic that needs to be approached by looking at many varieties of Art and the interpretation of Art. This also removes the "what is wrong with our culture?" line of complaint until the basic analysis has reached the point that we can recognize the unprecedented variety of objects and interpretations that are being juxtaposed in the world as it is now. I will also suggest that these juxtapositionings are fundamental in the ways that different Arts coexist and that interpretations are forced into being as useful things but with no invariant applicability.
I also recommend using real examples of Art.
Anyway...to get things started...here is an image of a tiny landscape on a black wall that was found in a villa near Pompeii:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/bsco/ho_20.192.1-.3.htm
Last edited: