|
My line of reasoning involved some large jumps that would require some justification. It could perhaps be seen as more of a thought experiment or sketch.
With regards to "everything is art" vs. "everything can be seen as art", I would hope this would be cleared up by my boundary of "art as expression". If something is created with the intent of expressing something, or produced in a way so that things may be expressed to others, it is art. Everything else that does not fall into this category could be argued not to be art. This is, possibly, a harsh, rather contrived boundary, but it does apply largely I would argue. Just like Tracey Emin's bed - your own un-made bed in the morning is not a piece of art, but hers is, because it was expressing a set of ideas to others through being placed in a certain context.
This idea presents an interesting problem for spiritual/religious people who believe in a creator of this world. I am not one of these people, but I imagine one could argue that if the world were created, it could have been made expressly for the purpose of communicating certain feelings/ideas to us, and would therefore be a piece of art. I would prefer to think of art as being a human construct*, but be that as it may, this does present an interesting line of thought.
If it seems that one can clear up the question of "what is art", albeit rather obtusely, with a bit of armchair thought, consider the more interesting question which I think this conversation has actually been about:
"What is good art?"
L.
*I suppose anything that is a human construct is indirectly a construct of God. I don't particularly enjoy thinking like this, however.
|