Hi, Tuesday, September 23, 2003, 4:31:55 PM, you wrote:
> Time to get into the fray. > I have long disagreed with the concept that something is art simply because > someone calls it art. The lady urinating in the bucket would be a good > example of it. I'm slowly revising my position. People can call whatever > they like art, but in the same sense I do not have to accept it as art > simply because someone else declares that it is. it is, in my opinion, even better to ignore the notion of art altogether. Forget it. It's a painting, or a sculpture, or a performance. Evaluate it in relation to other paintings, sculptures or performances you're familiar with. What difference does its status as art make to you, or to the work in question, or to the painter, sculptor or performer, or indeed to anyone or anything? If the lady pissing in the bucket thinks it's art, what difference does it make? If you think it's not art, what difference does it make? She's still a lady pissing in a bucket, she (presumably) intends somebody to interpret this in some way. Calling it art or not-art makes no difference to anything, as far as I can see. Confronting the Art Question is the most spectacularly irrelevant waste of time that I can think of. -- Cheers, Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
