Valentina

I know exactly what you're saying; that was sort of my point, too.

But I guess one type of example might be found in "folk art"--you know, objects that are created for some specific purpose within a particular culture, but which are deemed "art" by the dominant culture (usually after the dominant culture has practically obliterated the culture that created the "folk art".) Art people, help me out here. Some examples might be...I dunno...Navajo blankets? Kachina dolls? Pottery created by assorted tribespeople? Cave paintings? Fetishes? Just some thoughts...

I'm thinking that the creators of that kind of art may have been saying to themselves, "I'm going to make something that will please the gods/bring rain/encourage crop growth/carry stream water/assist the hunting party/" ...or whatever. Does that lack of express intent to 'create art' somehow disqualify these objects as 'art'? And is it even desirable to call them 'art'? Doesn't that proclamation, in and of itself, sort of reek of a type of colonization--the dominant culture explaining to another culture, "You may think that object you made is going to bring rain, but really it's just Art."

Another example of 'art without intent' would be "art" that was created by animals--check out the bowerbird link; it's cool, I promise.

Let's take Karen Finley and the whole performance art thing for a minute. I'm pretty sure Miss Finley and her ilk are specifically aiming to create 'Art' when they do what they do. Many people would say that they do not succeed. When Annie Sprinkle does her dildo show, is she making art or porn?

And, as far as stripping goes: What if a stripper dances with the primary intent of making money from the crowd, but she's a talented dancer who works hard to express her sheer pleasure in moving body to music, and she does it particularly artfully? Could we say that it's art, even though she has no intention of creating art? I tend to think not, but I'm not sure why...Will ponder later. (getting sleepy....)