|
Interesting discussion...
Unless you are a real absolutist and think there is or should be a final answer on something like this, you can accept the idea that there are several ways to answer a question that seems as simple as this one.
There is an academic tradition that defines art by virtue of a cannonical affiliation to its methods of interpreting art history and esthetics (or aesthetics if you prefer that spelling).
Klein’s work is a well-known and respected part of that cannon – pretty much for the reasons given here by Mr Mephisto.
Apparently many, if not most, of the people responding don’t accept this explanation of things artistic. That’s because the academic tradition of art galleries, museums, art critics, and the modern and contemporary artists who mine that vein haven’t been particularly successful at involving the majority of the population in their version of “art.”
So if the professionals who are entrusted by culture to make the official calls on questions like this aren’t accepted as authoritative, then we’re pretty much left with subjective calls. That’s pretty much how discussions of this sort evolve/devolve (take your pick).
I’d be careful, though, when looking to pin things down to a simple definition. That’s often the problem in life and especially in philosophy (esthetics is a branch of philosophy). When the question boils down to whether something vast and complex, manifold and diverse - something that is part of many people’s widely varying experience - can be nailed down by a single word or definition, we’re getting very close to pure semantics.
For the most part, art is what individual artists choose to call it and what various audiences and individuals are willing to accept as art. This will satisfy the subjectivists and relativists among us. It won’t do much for those who require absolute certainty in things.
__________________
create evolution
|