Is it the intent to make art or the process of making art which is more important in setting standards? Durer assumed a great deal about the results and and nature of the process when he said that art was embedded in nature, a remark which could be made now by many artists with different views of process. His view of intent may not have been as different from present views of intent as his view of process from present views of process. KAte Sulllivan In a message dated 5/23/10 2:01:14 AM, [email protected] writes:
> For about 100 years it's been widely understood that anything can > be art. Actually, that idea has been validated since the Renaissance when > artists like Durer claimed that art is in nature. I quote him: "Verily, art > is embedded in nature; he who can extract it has it" Thus if art already > exists in anything and everything how can some things be excluded by > standards? There are no standards. There are only choices, interests, and the > wit, and skill or lack of skill, of those who can use them to extract art > from anything.
