On 5/6/05, Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Art. Hmmm. Good question. > > There was a time when "art" was reduced to include any and all expressions > and the term really became meaningless. There was nothing to distinguish art > from non-art. It was wholely subjective. > > It's sometimes confused with content. Anything can be done in either > artfully or in a plain and sloppy manner. >
I completely agree. One of my favorite novelists, John Gardner, wrote an entire book about the morality of fiction, entitled appropriately "On Moral Fiction". While the book is specific to writing, he addresses art in general. Quoting from the book: "Almost all modern art is tinny, commercial, and immoral. Let a state of total war be declared not between art and society but between the age-old enemies, real and fake." He goes on to define art. (My copy is in a box somewhere, but if I can find it within the lifespan of this thread, I'll try to provide more.) This statement, made long before "On Moral Fiction" was published sums up his (and my) views on art: "There is a notion, which has to do with the romantic hero image, that writing is pure genius, and you can't teach it.... Bread Loaf, in fact, has been going for a very long time and has a very good record of helping extremely talented writers to become solid artists." > As best I can understand it ... > "Art" is a qualitative expression of developed, matured skills. > As far as I'm concerned, you've hit the nail on the head, Collin. Well said. > That brings up another question .... > Can something be "art" if nobody recognizes it as such? > To that I'd say "Yes", given the original intent and the character of the > product. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
