>Holy cats, you're pushing all my buttons tonight, Marnie. :-) >TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
I think you possibly you may have missed the ironic tone in my post and missed my other comments in other posts. Unless you are being ironic also. ;-) Or very deliberately making a point. Such as "IMHO, it is art is if the creator thinks it is art." And "Art is so subjective that discussions about what it is, whether it is good, etc. are sort of pointless. And I think that is the whole point." (I was referring to the shared story re the artist who had his painting "corrected.") And and "Visual art can hit us right where we live, in our gut, by-passing the brain to go straight to the emotions and/or senses. (But I've said that before.) But being judging, discriminating creatures, we want to explain and intellectualize why this is so. I think when we do that, use words to try to encompass a visual media, a lot of it is truly BS. Sure we can do it to some extent, but do words REALLY do that much?" As far as the popularity system of art and art critics, I was saying what I thought happened regarding the "ranking" of art. What actually does happen in the real world, the reality of it -- I was not saying that I think that is A GOOD THING. Actually, I thought the above comments I made made it clear how I feel about it. But I am the first to admit that my touch-in-cheekness and/or irony is does not always come across well in writing. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
