Seems to me that under the umbrella of aesthetics , any expression intended as art, would not be reflected in every mind, exactly alike. which to me, means that art is not a science, yet.
ab ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:43 AM Subject: Re: Art is money In a message dated 1/15/13 12:21:59 PM, [email protected] writes: > On Jan 15, 2013, at 11:57 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > But I might say, "In this conversation I will use the word 'art' to > label > > all and only those works that give me what I think of as an aesthetic > > experience." > > What about the works or objects that provoke in you an uninspiring or > uncomplimentary reaction, i.e., works that you don't think well of, that > you > don't like? Isn't that negative reaction an AE? Would you call those works > "art," and thus would you call Waiting for Godot a WoA because it > engendered a > negative AE? > > No, I myself wouldn't. I'm aware there are those who believe in the "existence" of "bad art", or they simply are adopting an arbitrary word-use with no ontic implications: Focusing on the intentions of a faulty creator, they stipulate that if he "intended to produce a work of art" then it shall be called a work of art, albeit it a bad one. I don't go that way because if I ever use the word 'art' I'd like it to be in an approving, honorific way. I recoil from calling "art" every careless, botched rendering by talentless bozos. (Realize: There's no right or wrong here. There is no "the" "correct" meaning of 'art'.)
