On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Doug Franklin
<jehosep...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, one cannot reasonably define art solely in terms of the artist, the
> work, or the intent of the artist, any more than one can reasonably define
> art solely in terms of the viewer/recipient/?.  Art is a collaboration
> between the "artist", the "work", and the "viewer". Both humans must be
> engaged, though not necessarily satisfied, for the work to achieve the
> status of "art".

Let me interject this "what is art?" thread for a moment to let you
all know that I'm going to go out just now to take a few photos.

I don't give a rat's ass if anyone calls them art or not.

Have a great day!

;-)

cheers,
frank




-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Reply via email to