An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Spraticus wrote:I see some value in some aspects of some of those; the idea that desire is the root of all our problems for example, but most of it is just superstitious pre-science, and as you say, it's off topic.
The topic is "What is Art?"
Spraticus wrote:You're repeating yourself. It was mystical waffle the first time you said it and it still is. It's a common problem with mystics that they see themselves as having privileged access to hidden knowledge but the reality is that this "knowledge" isn't hidden, it's just ignored because it isn't based on anything but internal fantasy.
Jan Sand wrote:Art cannot be a duck or a sneeze divorced from human direction. It is an intentional manipulation of perceptions with an agenda to communicate. There are many ways to manipulate perceptions and many disciplines within those intents, some so vague as to prompt negative responses.
Jan Sand wrote:I agree that anything can be art but "anyone sees something as 'art'" means there has been human participation in designating it as art.
That participation is crucial and selects an event or object as worthy of contemplation.
Without that human designation the total universe becomes interchangeable with art and the term "art" no longer is meaningful.
Jan Sand wrote:As you yourself indicate your own perceptions of natural beauty which make it art must exist to make it art. Without your perceptions it remains ecology.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest