But what if William's wise-ass students -- or America's notorious drunken paint dripper -- are not relevant to a discussion of art?
No -- wait --- Mike has already told us that "I consider it art, when a little boy sneaks up behind a little girl and shouts, "Boo" in an attempt to frighten her." So *everything* that *anyone* does in an attempt to communicate *any* kind of feeling (including boredom, despair, confusion) could be considered art. But then --- why should we be concerned with it? ***************************************************** WC wrote: The teacher says to the art student. What were you intending to do convey? The student says, Oh, I intended this to convey the beauty of peace. Teacher: Well, it doesn't convey that but it does convey that war is beautiful. Student. Yeah, that's what I really meant. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The artist's intention may be necessary to his or her motivation to make an artwork, but it is never sufficient to any artwork. In art making or in art response, you can claim to express or convey anything at all but you can never guarantee that you succeed. Pollock didn't know what his intention was. That's why he made paintings. _____________________________________________________________ Having troubles getting credit? Start rebuilding now with a prepaid credit card. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmM1ePrIQKEvNGLR6BQZOJdY VmXZFRK1gq3RDA95VifpeOzS/?count=1234567890
