Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia
I agree with you up until the point that someone necessarily needs to recognize the work of someone else as 'art.' This hearkens back to another conversation we had here a couple of years ago when it was purported to me that art doesn't exist unless someone other than the artist sees it and calls it 'art.' Not only does that go against my grain emotionally, but it doesn't seem logical. How often are great artists not discovered until after their death? Was their work not 'art' as long as it was holed up in their attic unseen by others?
|
Well, it can be said that it was always art, regardless.
If a tree falls in the forest?
For something to have a status, it needs confirmation. I think if something is created by an artist and never sees the light of day that it still could be art, but until someone else experiences it, its status as art is possibly confirmed solely with self-indulgent bias.
Quote:
|
Perhaps the conflict (for me) is seated in the use of the word 'art' which, as you seem to describe it, is a commodity. Perhaps 'art' and the existence of what would be art are two different things.
|
By "consume," I don't mean as a commodity; I mean it as an experience.