Originally Posted by ARTelevision

zen_tom, no, my response would be the same.

I see things rendered up to my sensory experience as phenomena with particular histories, existences, and trajectories - as texts.

I look at all texts the same way - existentially. That is, I see them as products of my experience, my mind, my senses, and of outside agencies - sometimes the agent is human. As I move through various levels of deconstruction and/or comprehension, I come to certain tentative conclusions.

Why should I look at art any other way than the way I look at a tree, for example? I like Jackson Pollack's explanation of himself and his work. When asked why he didn't paint from nature, he declared, "I am nature".

Why should I look at a beaver dam any differently than I look at a work of art? Why should I look at a work of art any differently than I look at a machine?

Why should I look at a work of culture differently than I look at a work of nature?

I don't see any good reasons to do so.
So I don't.