[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: definitions
- From: Jeff Peachey <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 09:33:12 -0400
- Message-Id: <"yq04e2.n.M23.L8T4l"@sul2>
> What are those material biases? If you can get the material easily it's
> craft? If it's a mass quantity of something, is that art? I know some
> people who think it is.
valuable materials have been used throught history for both art and
craft. but it wasn't to long ago if you did a painting with latex house
paint it wouldn't be regarded as art because of the material. i also
think it would be difficult to convince someone that a needlepoint was an
artistic statement, no matter how asthetically pleasing it was, because
of its craft connotations.
so i wonder if it is the materials- the leather/ cloth/ paper- or the
shape of a codex that prevent the status of art to be applied to it.
> Is art something you can't touch or hold? Why does that make it more
> valuable ?
i think its the other way around- once an object has the status- of art
the people who own the art don't want lost- same with expensive crafts.
> Is a blank book truly a book, as it contains no information?
everything contains information
claudia, what you were saying about the original and reproduction is
along the lines of Walter Benjamin in the essay "The work of art in
the age of mechanical reproduction." he makes the point about the "aura"
of the original, and the fact that the most perfect reproduction cannot
simulate the unique presence in time and space of the original.