Winterclaw opened this issue on Sep 09, 2009 · 39 posts
Morkonan posted Fri, 11 September 2009 at 7:15 AM
Quote - You know.. the way I feel is what I may think is art, 50 other people may think its crap. giggles
I'm a sucker for a painted look. Victorian style. But art to me is anything that moves me.
So, is something "Art" that doesn't move you yet moves other people?
Admittedly, we all can't have the same tastes. We're also not all within the same social groups, able to interpret the same sets of symbols and various uses of communication techniques. So, something that may evoke meaning for you may not interest a primitive tribesman from South America. Or, he may just not be equipped to understand the methods an artist was using. Similarly, a blind person may not find the Mona Lisa to be especially engaging yet, the "touch garden" with its stones, sculptures, flowers and sounds at the local park moves them deeply.
Hmm... Here's something to convey that message, I hope:
When I was growing up and then later in college, I, like many self-proclaimed geeks, played the game Dungeons and Dragons. That is a "subculture" which exists in many Western Societies. This piece of "art" above makes a unique reference to cultural ques that are only fully realized within the subculture of D&D/Roleplaying aficionados. Outside of that group, it's full message is somewhat meaningless. But, the intended audience would find it amusing, evoking the memories of the game and a playful irony. To them, it is probably "good art." To others who view "art" as only having meaning when it applies directly to their experiences, it would not be "Art."
One fundamental intellectual idea is called Aristotle's Three Laws of Thought. Summarized, they are:
1) A thing is identical to itself. (Equivalence, not to be confused with G.R. though)
Why bring them up? Simple, when looking to define or describe something, we need not ignore the rules we have used for millenia to define the world around us. A quick application of Aristotle would seem to show that a thing can not both be "Art" and be "not Art." (Contradiction) It must either have the quality or not. (Excluded Middle) Is "Art" a direct enough category for it to apply to Equivalence? Perhaps so.. A thing is always equal to itself. IOW, it can not "Be" and, at the same time "not be" itself. Either it is "Art" or it is "not." It can't be both. So, if you attempt to define something, you must not violate the Equivalence Principle or else the definition makes no sense. ... It all depends on your definition.
Why the long spiel? Because, while I admit my tastes in Art are virtually non-existent, I have to acknowledge that lack of enthusiasm for certain "art" doesn't devalue it or make it "not Art" in a wider sense. Much of what I see in, for instance, the Renderosity Galleries isn't very appealing. But, a lot of people find meaning in those pieces so, I'll not devalue their experience by claiming that "Art is only that which appeals to me." Besides, to do so doesn't fit with my definition. :)