The Art of CIP wrote:

Okay - I'm gonna open the can of worms!!!  What are the right and wrong answers to the question?   You're a brave man man James...  In all my years on this earth I avoid defining art like the plague... BTW - this a great thread - it's given me something to do while I'm sitting here at my work desk working away!!

LOL! I've never been accused of being brave before! Just been accused of being arrogant.  Perhaps arrogance is a part of bravery (or vice-versa)...  So many thoughts running around intertwined, hard to stay on topic...

Ok...my definition of art...  I too started out in this field saying "I'll never be able to define art" but then I saw so much stuff put out as art, that isn't truly art, and I couldn't put my finger on why.  Being the guy I am, I had to put something in place so that I could honestly explain why I thought something was or wasn't art.  So I started doing some investigating, and all the definitions I found for art were...lacking...  Either they excluded some types of art, or some ways of creating art, or they were too elitist, or too inclusive.  I looked at art that I liked, and also realized that there were things that I didn't like that were truly art as well.  So after all that, and a couple of years of soul searching and thinking on it, and with a sudden epiphany provided by a certain article on science, I came up with:

Art is something which you can not walk away from without critiquing.

Now, you may say "Well I can critique anything!" Which is why the definition says "can not walk away from without critiquing" instead of "is something you can critique"  You may also say "well, even the act of being unable to critique something is in and of itself a critique" to which my reply is no...  Think of ads in magazines or on bus stop billboards.  They *can* be artistic, so interesting as to force you to stop and look, but they can also be so banal that you just walk or flip by them without taking a second glance.  "Well I could lie and say I didn't care about it," you might say.  Yes, the definition requires being honest with yourself.  Sorry.  And you may say, "but what I find interesting and critique worthy someone else may not." Which I again would have to disagree with.  If you accept the premise that beauty is pre-defined in our genetic coding (which it is according to science) then on average everyone would find the same things critique worthy.

James Jackson wrote:

LOL! I've never been accused of being brave before! Just been accused of being arrogant.  Perhaps arrogance is a part of bravery (or vice-versa)...  So many thoughts running around intertwined, hard to stay on topic...

Ok...my definition of art...  I too started out in this field saying "I'll never be able to define art" but then I saw so much stuff put out as art, that isn't truly art, and I couldn't put my finger on why.  Being the guy I am, I had to put something in place so that I could honestly explain why I thought something was or wasn't art.  So I started doing some investigating, and all the definitions I found for art were...lacking...  Either they excluded some types of art, or some ways of creating art, or they were too elitist, or too inclusive.  I looked at art that I liked, and also realized that there were things that I didn't like that were truly art as well.  So after all that, and a couple of years of soul searching and thinking on it, and with a sudden epiphany provided by a certain article on science, I came up with:

Art is something which you can not walk away from without critiquing.

Now, you may say "Well I can critique anything!" Which is why the definition says "can not walk away from without critiquing" instead of "is something you can critique"  You may also say "well, even the act of being unable to critique something is in and of itself a critique" to which my reply is no...  Think of ads in magazines or on bus stop billboards.  They *can* be artistic, so interesting as to force you to stop and look, but they can also be so banal that you just walk or flip by them without taking a second glance.  "Well I could lie and say I didn't care about it," you might say.  Yes, the definition requires being honest with yourself.  Sorry.  And you may say, "but what I find interesting and critique worthy someone else may not." Which I again would have to disagree with.  If you accept the premise that beauty is pre-defined in our genetic coding (which it is according to science) then on average everyone would find the same things critique worthy.

I had to read it about 3 times (the evening is setting in...).  To that I agree and disagree.  Why?  Because in my own opinion not everything which receives a critique is art.  The definition is too vague without actually firmly defining what is art.  Again, the idea of art is subjective to the individual at hand.  Duchamp proved that, Warhol proved that, Pollack proved that.  How?  They provided their own idea of art that their contemporaries, their reviewers stood back and said WTF?  Sure to one person a campbells soup can, a urinal...they aren't art, they are instead product marketing.  To another (myself included) they are... simply because they blurred the predetermined lines that bound other artists in place.  Yes they recieved critique (whether you walked past determining it was banal or beautiful) and for that I agree with you. 

However, with that in mind, say the critique was simply "that is not art, and therefore I'll give it no other thought".  A new person has now applied his own subjective definition of art and ergo...it is no longer art to that person.  I do believe that not a single textbook can pinpoint the exact premeasured definition without leaving at least a minor portion up to the "Gods that be". 

And again...with the idea that art is something that you can not walk away from without critiquing [sic].... the first that comes to mind is my sister when she goes to classes in the morning.  Sure, the entire family gives her the up/down glance and studiously glares at her choice of exposing more of her cleavage than is probably necessary for an algebra class.  Is she a work of art?  Well.... the jury is out on that but for the most part....no.  She is not art. Although within the contexts of your definition...she'd be a candidate.

Brandon Smith wrote:
And again...with the idea that art is something that you can not walk away from without critiquing [sic].... the first that comes to mind is my sister when she goes to classes in the morning.  Sure, the entire family gives her the up/down glance and studiously glares at her choice of exposing more of her cleavage than is probably necessary for an algebra class.  Is she a work of art?  Well.... the jury is out on that but for the most part....no.  She is not art. Although within the contexts of your definition...she'd be a candidate.

Well, I'd say your sister is definitely an artist at dressing.

As for Warhol, Pollack, and Duchamp...  I am of the opinion that my definition still holds true.  Is a urinal in a bathroom art? Not unless it is so beautifully designed it doesn't let you walk away from it without making you take notice.  Is a urinal in an art gallery art? Hell yes...no one is going to walk away from it without critiquing it...and I highly doubt you could ever simply walk past a urinal in an unexpected place and call it banal.

Nerlande wrote:
Successful.

You can always buy happiness

Again I'd have to ask why...

Happiness isn't easily attained with money.

Brandon Smith wrote:
However, with that in mind, say the critique was simply "that is not art, and therefore I'll give it no other thought".

I'd say that they just lied to themselves because the mere fact that they had to say "that is not art" makes it art.

That's the whole essence of what Warhol et. al. were trying to prove.

Now, if urinals were so common in art galleries that the person just literally walked by it...not thinking anything of it...then I'd agree with them that it is not art.

James Jackson wrote:

Well, I'd say your sister is definitely an artist at dressing.

As for Warhol, Pollack, and Duchamp...  I am of the opinion that my definition still holds true.  Is a urinal in a bathroom art? Not unless it is so beautifully designed it doesn't let you walk away from it without making you take notice.  Is a urinal in an art gallery art? Hell yes...no one is going to walk away from it without critiquing it...and I highly doubt you could ever simply walk past a urinal in an unexpected place and call it banal.

Thank you James for blindly proving my point.  For that urinal... same article, different contexts.  The urinal didn't change - a persons subjective opinion of it did.  Flush against a bathroom wall no one would have given notice of it.  It was not until one person decided to take it out of context that it became art to so many other people. 

As for calling it banal - that is exactly what many people did as soon as Duchamp removed it from its original context.  To many it was nothing more than a vitreous china urinal used for making deposits (snicker!).  To Duchamp it was art.  Duchamp looked to discredit other's ideas of art by thowing in something completely different from the norm that yes...people had no choice but to critique it.  Did that alone make it art?  Not to many people but to me...it certainly played a part.

Brandon Smith wrote:
Thank you James for blindly proving my point.  For that urinal... same article, different contexts.  The urinal didn't change - a persons subjective opinion of it did.  Flush against a bathroom wall no one would have given notice of it.  It was not until one person decided to take it out of context that it became art to so many other people.

Funny... I think it proves my point as well.

Yes it's the same article in different contexts.  It was brought to it's final context by an artist...  Just as a pen and pad are banal in most instances, but under the hand of an artist and framed and hung in a gallery it becomes art.  Same articles, different contexts.

My definition of art includes these types of art, where most definitions would exclude them.

James Jackson wrote:

I'd say that they just lied to themselves because the mere fact that they had to say "that is not art" makes it art.

That's the whole essence of what Warhol et. al. were trying to prove.

Now, if urinals were so common in art galleries that the person just literally walked by it...not thinking anything of it...then I'd agree with them that it is not art.

Touche but again.... what makes you so sure that they lied to themselves?  Yes...they provided a critique in and of itself based on the sheer theory that their idea of art is correct.  BUT, It is still not art to the person at hand.  Merely making a critique of it does not automatically apply the stigma of "art" to the article at hand.  Why?  Because it does not fit with their own determined ideals of what art might be.  Art cannot be defined simply in the idea that if it can be critiqued because there are too many other factors that play in that. 

Also, landscapes are all so common in galleries.... does that no longer make it art?

James Jackson wrote:

Funny... I think it proves my point as well.

Yes it's the same article in different contexts.  It was brought to it's final context by an artist...  Just as a pen and pad are banal in most instances, but under the hand of an artist and framed and hung in a gallery it becomes art.  Same articles, different contexts.

My definition of art includes these types of art, where most definitions would exclude them.

Then your definition should be refined to say that it should be based on its context, not just the ability to be critiqued.  Say that pen and pad (signed by the same artist) is simply haphazardly placed on the bedside table of the hotel room he stayed in that night.  Is it art?  Well it should be under the pretext of your previous post.  Why?  Because it is no different than the article framed and hanging in the gallery.  In reality is it art?  Well that is left to the person who is looking at it (currently...the artist who now has determined that it is).  So again.... total subjectivity based on expression and context not based on critique.

Brandon Smith wrote:
Touche but again.... what makes you so sure that they lied to themselves?  Yes...they provided a critique in and of itself based on the sheer theory that their idea of art is correct.  BUT, It is still not art to the person at hand.  Merely making a critique of it does not automatically apply the stigma of "art" to the article at hand.  Why?  Because it does not fit with their own determined ideals of what art might be.  Art cannot be defined simply in the idea that if it can be critiqued because there are too many other factors that play in that.

Well you can't argue the definition without presuming it true.  That's not fair.  In any scientific method you must assume the hypothesis true and disprove it.

My hypothesis is that being forced to critique something *does* make it art...and just because you think it's so bad that it doesn't deserve the title of art does not make it not art, it just makes it bad art.

I don't care what the pre-determined ideal of art is, I'm re-defining it.  Under my definition, they have lied to themselves...

Also as I said originally, my definition requires the acceptance of the fact that beauty is determined by your genes and is a universal constant, not the matter of opinion that many think it is, so your supposition that "there are too many factors involved in whether something would be critiqued or not" is false.  I think that if you averaged it out you'd find that the grand majority of people would critique the same things...hence a very definable body of art.

Brandon Smith wrote:
Also, landscapes are all so common in galleries.... does that no longer make it art?

Sometimes yes, the mere common banality of a certain type of image makes it lose it's status as art.  Can a landscape still be art? Yes.  Can it be such a boring landscape that you walk right past it hanging on the wall and don't even take notice of it...eyes glazing over...and thus be not art? Yes.

James Jackson wrote:

LOL! I've never been accused of being brave before! Just been accused of being arrogant.  Perhaps arrogance is a part of bravery (or vice-versa)...  So many thoughts running around intertwined, hard to stay on topic...

Ok...my definition of art...  I too started out in this field saying "I'll never be able to define art" but then I saw so much stuff put out as art, that isn't truly art, and I couldn't put my finger on why.  Being the guy I am, I had to put something in place so that I could honestly explain why I thought something was or wasn't art.  So I started doing some investigating, and all the definitions I found for art were...lacking...  Either they excluded some types of art, or some ways of creating art, or they were too elitist, or too inclusive.  I looked at art that I liked, and also realized that there were things that I didn't like that were truly art as well.  So after all that, and a couple of years of soul searching and thinking on it, and with a sudden epiphany provided by a certain article on science, I came up with:

Art is something which you can not walk away from without critiquing.

Now, you may say "Well I can critique anything!" Which is why the definition says "can not walk away from without critiquing" instead of "is something you can critique"  You may also say "well, even the act of being unable to critique something is in and of itself a critique" to which my reply is no...  Think of ads in magazines or on bus stop billboards.  They *can* be artistic, so interesting as to force you to stop and look, but they can also be so banal that you just walk or flip by them without taking a second glance.  "Well I could lie and say I didn't care about it," you might say.  Yes, the definition requires being honest with yourself.  Sorry.  And you may say, "but what I find interesting and critique worthy someone else may not." Which I again would have to disagree with.  If you accept the premise that beauty is pre-defined in our genetic coding (which it is according to science) then on average everyone would find the same things critique worthy.

Interesting...  Of course by me not defining art, I philosophically cannot discredit someone else's definition of it...  Everyone's view is there own - so in some strange cosmic glitch - their definitions are valid...  Strange how that works - but art is something that is intrinsic to humanity - i think a great orator could argue successfully that art is a human emotion...

Brandon Smith wrote:
Then your definition should be refined to say that it should be based on its context, not just the ability to be critiqued.  Say that pen and pad (signed by the same artist) is simply haphazardly placed on the bedside table of the hotel room he stayed in that night.  Is it art?  Well it should be under the pretext of your previous post.  Why?  Because it is no different than the article framed and hanging in the gallery.  In reality is it art?  Well that is left to the person who is looking at it (currently...the artist who now has determined that it is).  So again.... total subjectivity based on expression and context not based on critique.

No...my definition already includes context.

Under my definition the pen and pad signed by the artist would not be art unless framed and placed in the gallery.

Why?

Because on the bedside table of the hotel room it is to be expected, and thus would be ignored as it's swept in to the rubbish bin by the cleaner.

But, on the wall of a gallery people would stop and observe it and give an opinion.

Of course you can still have art outside a gallery, by my definition, because if you put a really good painting on a bus stop, people will still stop and critique it and not walk past without noticing.

Whereas if you included explicit context in the definition of art, you exclude some things that are very artistic...

For instance, the installer of the urinal in the bathroom could be an artist at his craft, and every weld between pipes could be perfect and each bead of caulk precise...and you would not be able to walk away without noticing his art...

James Jackson wrote:
Well you can't argue the definition without presuming it true.  That's not fair.  In any scientific method you must assume the hypothesis true and disprove it.

My hypothesis is that being force to critique something *does* make it art...and just because you think it's so bad that it doesn't deserve the title of art does not make it not art, it just makes it bad art.

I don't care what the pre-determined ideal of art is, I'm re-defining it.  Under my definition, they have lied to themselves...

Also as I said originally, my definition requires the acceptance of the fact that beauty is determined by your genes and is a universal constant, not the matter of opinion that many think it is, so your supposition that "there are too many factors involved in whether something would be critiqued or not" is false.  I think that if you averaged it out you'd find that the grand majority of people would critique the same things...hence a very definable body of art.


Sometimes yes, the mere common banality of a certain type of image makes it lose it's status as art.  Can a landscape still be art? Yes.  Can it be such a boring landscape that you walk right past it hanging on the wall and don't even take notice of it...eyes glazing over...and thus be not art? Yes.

This of course is a debate to which I have agreed on certain points and disagreed on others.  My own definition of art is different than yours.  Does that make your definition wrong?  Not by your own standard.  Is mine incorrect?  Not by my standards.  That is what makes art art.  The mere idea that the two of us can take the same work and debate its existence.  Person A may determine that it is devoid of value, can not be critiqued.  Does that make their definition of art wrong?  No it doesn't.  Why?  Because the sheer critique of art is based upon a culmination of factors revolving around environment, socio-economic status, genetics, etc.  Is it art?  Well it depends on whom you ask.    What might be bad art to you might be great art to another and not even art to the third.  Does that make them wrong?  Not at all..... because art lies in the eye of the beholder.

The Art of CIP wrote:
but art is something that is intrinsic to humanity - i think a great orator could argue successfully that art is a human emotion...

Damnit...now that might be fun...

James Jackson wrote:

OK,  why?

(sorry, I'd just like a little exposition so that I can try to understand the position)

Easy, I have an uncontrollable desire to achieve my goals. I have a lot to prove to a lot of people, most importantly, to myself...I could never be happy without a certain degree of success. It just not in my personality. Every day I take a step closer. The goal is success not happiness, happiness is just a bonus prize.

Nemi wrote:

Easy, I have an uncontrollable desire to achieve my goals. I have a lot to prove to a lot of people, most importantly, to myself...I could never be happy without a certain degree of success. It just not in my personality. Every day I take a step closer. The goal is success not happiness, happiness is just a bonus prize.

Will there ever be a point at which you have (definition 1) succeeded at being (definition 2a) successful?

James Jackson wrote:

No...my definition already includes context.

Under my definition the pen and pad signed by the artist would not be art unless framed and placed in the gallery.

Why?

Because on the bedside table of the hotel room it is to be expected, and thus would be ignored as it's swept in to the rubbish bin by the cleaner.

But, on the wall of a gallery people would stop and observe it and give an opinion.

Of course you can still have art outside a gallery, by my definition, because if you put a really good painting on a bus stop, people will still stop and critique it and not walk past without noticing.

Whereas if you included explicit context in the definition of art, you exclude some things that are very artistic...

For instance, the installer of the urinal in the bathroom could be an artist at his craft, and every weld between pipes could be perfect and each bead of caulk precise...and you would not be able to walk away without noticing his art...

But again..... What you have said is that because it was expected it was no longer art.  Why?  The artist felt it was signifigant enough to frame and hang in a gallery.  No one's opinion mattered but his own from the time he decided it was worthy of being called art.

As for the idea of the plumber and his art.  Sure, I call plumbing art in and of itself.  However, it too is expected so therefore (by your definition) it is no longer art for art's sake.  See my point? 

It isn't so much the idea of exclusion because I didn't say to preclude any form of art....just to bring about a more definitive suggestion of what it might be.  Stating that "what can be critiqued is art" leaves it open ended and includes the touchdown pass at a football game, my sister, or anything else for that matter.  Any person can critique anything....does that make it art?  Well that all depends on who is looking at it.

Brandon Smith wrote:
Person A may determine that it is devoid of value, can not be critiqued.  Does that make their definition of art wrong? 
...
Because the sheer critique of art is based upon a culmination of factors revolving around environment, socio-economic status, genetics, etc.
...
art lies in the eye of the beholder.

Ah...see...this is why you don't accept my definition.  You cling to the idea that how we view things is subjective...whilst I have found out that science has proven our view of beauty is based in genetics and not really subjective at all.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h … cation=rss

On *average* the majority of people will critique the same things.  Yes in the micro of psychology my definition doesn't work...I don't mind that though, because on the macro of sociology my definition does work.

James Jackson wrote:

Will there ever be a point at which you have (definition 1) succeeded at being (definition 2a) successful?

There are different degrees of success for me. Current Goals and Long term goals.
Current successes would be, finding an appt. Getting the job I  just applied to and steadily getting more paid work. Short term things that in the long run, are meaningless.

Long term successes are, graduating college and becoming an established working actor. Of course I will always want to strive for more, but not to the point where I would be unhappy because of it.

James Jackson wrote:

Ah...see...this is why you don't accept my definition.  You cling to the idea that how we view things is subjective...whilst I have found out that science has proven our view of beauty is based in genetics and not really subjective at all.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/h … cation=rss

No no no.....don't put words into my mouth.  I have not chosen to discredit the idea that beauty is genetically determined.  Why?  Because I do not feel that beauty is the only factor in determining what art is.  Beauty does not equate to art nor does art equate to beauty.  Banality (such as the urinal) can also bring about art.

Brandon Smith wrote:
But to add... I'll use this debate for example.  Others reading this might critque this with any series of comments.  Personally... I view debate as an art form because it requires a use of words, grammar, and context to prove a point quickly and effectively.  To others....this is just a meaningless debate.  A critique yes...but they have just discredited what I feel is an art.

Good point, but one which proves why I like my definition again.

An artistic debate will not be overlooked...where as a non artistic debate will just be clicked past without being read.

If it is compelling enough to read all the way, then it is successful at being art, and whether the person thinks it is a horrible debate (because it doesn't accomplish anything or because they disagree) or the person thinks it is a grand debate (for whatever reason), they have still critiqued it...  Just because they didn't like it didn't invalidate it as art, rather just made it bad art.

Nemi wrote:
Of course I will always want to strive for more, but not to the point where I would be unhappy because of it.

That's where I *was* a few years ago, but I found out after 10 years or so of striving for more that it would always make me unhappy.

James Jackson wrote:

Good point, but one which proves why I like my definition again.

An artistic debate will not be overlooked...where as a non artistic debate will just be clicked past without being read.

If it is compelling enough to read all the way, then it is successful at being art, and whether the person thinks it is a horrible debate (because it doesn't accomplish anything or because they disagree) or the person thinks it is a grand debate (for whatever reason), they have still critiqued it...  Just because they didn't like it didn't invalidate it as art, rather just made it bad art.

But wait James....you still don't get where I'm coming from.  Sure, you and I now see it as art.  We agree on it.  We've determined that it is.  Now person C determines that it isn't.  Does that discredit the idea that is is art?  Not for us but for them... it no longer is, nor was it ever art to begin with.  Currently You have the mind set that all is art until proven otherwise.  Reality forces us to realize that the majority of the population feels that all is not art unless you prove to them it is.  Hence the reason for so many schools of art over the course of history.  We've made advancements into proving new forms of art....not disproving what isn't art. 

This is beginning to be a very "which came first...the chicken or the  egg" type of debate.

Brandon Smith wrote:

No no no.....don't put words into my mouth.  I have not chosen to discredit the idea that beauty is genetically determined.  Why?  Because I do not feel that beauty is the only factor in determining what art is.  Beauty does not equate to art nor does art equate to beauty.  Banality (such as the urinal) can also bring about art.

My apologies Brandon, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Perhaps you aren't understanding what I'm equating though... I think that just as beauty is determined genetically so are all the things that we determine as "beautiful" or "ugly".  Also just as all things are beautiful - ugly on a sliding scale pre-determined in our genes, I see there being a middle ground where things are neither beautiful nor ugly enough for us to take notice.  That is banality, and I think everyone's genetic coding being the same would not only find the same things beautiful and ugly, they would also find the same things banal.

James Jackson wrote:

My apologies Brandon, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Perhaps you aren't understanding what I'm equating though... I think that just as beauty is determined genetically so are all the things that we determine as "beautiful" or "ugly".  Also just as all things are beautiful - ugly on a sliding scale pre-determined in our genes, I see there being a middle ground where things are neither beautiful nor ugly enough for us to take notice.  That is banality, and I think everyone's genetic coding being the same would not only find the same things beautiful and ugly, they would also find the same things banal.

I will halfheartedly agree.  Beauty, or lack thereof, only partially decides what is called art.  I'm not discrediting this theory, merely providing that it is only a smaller portion of the big picture. 

Thanks for the apology though.

Brandon Smith wrote:
Sure, you and I now see it as art.  We agree on it.  We've determined that it is.  Now person C determines that it isn't.  Does that discredit the idea that is is art?

What I'm saying is: Person C will NEVER determine that it is not art.

My supposition is if Person A walks past it and is forced to take notice, Person B will not be able to walk past it without taking notice, and neither will Person C, because all three people are wired the same genetically to notice the same things.

James Jackson wrote:

What I'm saying is: Person C will NEVER determine that it is not art.

My supposition is if Person A walks past it and is forced to take notice, Person B will not be able to walk past it without taking notice, and neither will Person C, because all three people are wired the same genetically to notice the same things.

But that, James, in and of itself does not make it art...even based upon your original definition.

James Jackson wrote:

That's where I *was* a few years ago, but I found out after 10 years or so of striving for more that it would always make me unhappy.

I am pretty much rising up from nothing right now, so every success is a big one, I can't see myself being unhappy with that.

Brandon Smith wrote:

But that, James, in and of itself does not make it art...even based upon your original definition.

Well...if take notice == critique then whatever it was those three walked past is art.

Nemi wrote:

I am pretty much rising up from nothing right now, so every success is a big one, I can't see myself being unhappy with that.

True...I think maybe success is more seductive than happiness, but happiness has the longer shelf life

James Jackson wrote:

Well...if take notice == critique then whatever it was those three walked past is art.

Possibly.  But then that would be leaving it open ended based upon the person's determined definition of art was.  If his critque was nothing more than a critique...than who are we to say that it was art to him. 

What I'm saying James is that determining what is art for someone else is like choosing makeup for someone you've never met.  We can debate our myriad of theories day in and day out but in reality they may mean absolutely nothing to the third person unless they buy into the exact same stigma as you and I.  I don't argue that you're incorrect, I argue that even your definition leaves itself open to interpretation and use of loopholes. 

In essence... I leave it only to agreement to disagreement simply because my idea of art will always be differnt based upon a series of different factors.  And I'm fine with that.  I enjoy not having a 100% definate answer to what art is because I have determined that art is ever changing and therefore leaves itself open to that constant debate :-)

Brandon Smith wrote:
I argue that even your definition leaves itself open to interpretation and use of loopholes.

Well...as I said...on a micro/psychology level, yes art is open to interpretation...however on a macro/sociological level I think art needs to be defined and I think my definition works well.

James Jackson wrote:

Well...as I said...on a micro/psychology level, yes art is open to interpretation...however on a macro/sociological level I think art needs to be defined and I think my definition works well.

Which brings up a new question.....why does it need to be defined?  Not a question which I am aptly prepared to answer (considering it is almost Sunday and I've got a shoot in the morning) but just fodor for the mind.

And with that.... Great topic James :-)

First Shot Studios wrote:
I am nearing 30, and as many say that "you find yourself in your later 20's" I'm finding that to be very true.

I'm right there with you Patrick.  Same age, same realizations, different industry (computer science rather than business), but same outcome.