If an artwork is recognized as such when it is understood to be presenting "levels and types of meaning or interpretation" -- then one could claim that those who are unaware of such ideas are not appreciating it properly.
Isn't that why we have classes and lectures in art appreciation and the professions of art history and art criticism ? Doesn't everyone here agree with this - except for Cheerskep and me ? Cheerskep -- because he disagrees with everything -- and me, because ...well, it's not so much that I disagree -- as that I don't care whether something is recognized as an artwork or not. (other than for the practical matter of getting it displayed in a public place) For example -- my local museum has just mounted an exhibit of it's own collection of 16th-18th C. European tapestries -- all stuff that it has been keeping in it's basement for up to a hundred years. Why hasn't it been displayed more often ? Because modern art ideology has "viewed tapestries as mere copies of paintings or as little more than interior furnishings" (Derek would probably agree) Now - perhaps as that ideology is changing -- some large tapestry exhibits have been mounted here and in NYC. Are tapestries important works of art? I don't know -- and I don't really care -- except that I *certainly* like to see them -- and unless they are accepted as works of art, I'll probably never see this collection again after it comes down in January. _____________________________________________________________ Click here to find experienced pros to help with your home improvement project. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmcn1GiUhda7jEHFRMrxoJP7 pBlWU57uePhaoc29xX10OvVi/?count=1234567890
