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.
