I think you¹re absolutely right. But I often forget (see below) that it¹s a touchy subject, and always find myself trying to back out gracefully from any conversation about art. So I¹ll shut up :)
-- David Terranova davidterranova.com From: Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "videoblogging@yahoogroups.com" <videoblogging@yahoogroups.com> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:56:58 -0700 To: "videoblogging@yahoogroups.com" <videoblogging@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] This is kind of kick ass Some people get considered celebrities because they go to parties and look pretty in magazines. If somebody does something that I consider art and you consider not clever enough to be art, or just the product of someone with too much free time, what does it matter? Is anybody losing out? Is other art devalued? I'm not so comfortable with drawing a line between what's acceptable or 'professional' enough to be considered art and what's not. I think that's key to what a lot of people do here and how it's seen by the outside world. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 29-Oct-08, at 10:40 AM, sull wrote: anybody is an artist... nobody is an artist... On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM, David Terranova <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:david%40davidterranova.com> >wrote: > He also has a lot of free time by the looks of it. > Some people just have the free time part, yet get considered as artists by > making [time-consuming but not-so-clever] gimmicks. > Nothing wrong with that. It¹s just fascinating who gets considered artists > sometimes. > > I don¹t really know much about this guy, so I may be wrong in including him > in this generalization... > > -- > David Terranova > davidterranova.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
