Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardener
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.
|
i agree with the fact that ''art'' is a word we use to designate something. i agree that its use is intra-lingual and being so it must have relations to other words. i just wanted to point out that relations are not necessarily of the that/this, black/white type. and the sense of ''not perfect definition'' most probably means understanding. so, we might not have any definition of art (just opinions, thoughts and so on) and try to understand the idea (not the word) of art. i am all for living into the question ''what is art?'' or, more sincerely - "what comes to be art, what may become art?'", yet is doesn't mean i have a definition of art - just some sort of goal, an idea that moves my thoughts.
p.s of course we can talk about concepts of 'blebribog', but and only if they have (are shown to have) relations to other words or concept( ideas). inventing neologisms is not something wrong. it helps. we need new word for new things.