|
Keep in mind that I wasn't voicing my personal opinion, just trying to give a possible explanation of LDunn's point. I think there's a huge difference between "everything can become art" and "everything is art". I agree with the first, not with the latter.
You, pliorius, raised some good points. However, I see nothing wrong with trying to define art (even if you "fail"). "Art" is a word and part of language, which serves to communicate. (Don't read this wrongly! I said the word "art" is part of language and serves to communicate, not art itself!) The existence of the word "art" would be pointless without at least a vague idea of a definition. We don't have to define art, but in that case we don't need the word art either and better stopped using it at all. -If- we use the word "art" we might just as well try to define it (knowing that such a definition will be imperfect).
Otherwise we can just talk about a concept such as "Blebribog", say that it has no definition, no properties, and applies to everything. It won't really be of much use.
|