|
The above post intentionally blank, mostly to go <b>atsteve</b>'s brilliant questioning of what makes a post one better.
Of course it's not Art. It doesn't have the snazzy cowboy hat, nor the two beautiful ladies.
So far as absolutism goes, I think <b>peetster</b> is absolutely right: of course it's art, but it's wretchedly bad art. Pollack and Basquiat and Rothko and Reinhardt and Klein and Warhol are certainly artists, but as professional artists, I am inclined to think of them as frauds.
Unsurprisingly, I also have to agree with what <b>Art</b> has to say about it. The problem with not having an absolute definition what is and is not art on the one hand and, within art, what constitutes very good and very bad, is that I think a fair percentage of the country would agree that a civilization which supports art is thereby improved (Sorry about the construction of that, my girls just woke up, and I get to think in three word chunks now until the end of the day). So there needs to be some way to determine what deserves support, since I would argue that it is better to support no art at all than to support a great deal of bad art.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
|