Friday, May 6, 2005, 2:06:28 PM, Paul wrote: PS> That's a very narrow definition. It would exclude many of those works PS> hanging on the walls of the world's museums. Art can create disharmony. PS> It can provoke and inspire chaos. It can be ambiguous or PS> straightforward and clear. And of course there's a difference between PS> personal art and universal art. If I create something that I love, it PS> is at least personal art. If the rest of humankind embraces it as well, PS> it is universal art. In between those two extremes there are other PS> layers. Different cultures are moved by different words, different PS> pictures. The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work PS> endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great PS> art: a classic. PS> Paul
Hi Paul, you wrote in nicely. Especially the last part. For me, art has a transcendental quality. Perhaps I am a platonist :) Frantisek
