[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: definitions

On Thu, 30 Jun 1994, Sid Huttner, McFarlin Library, Tulsa wrote:

> There is not, I think, anything like a consensus on the 
> definition of "art" -- but the strongest arguments, to my 
> mind, start by grounding the definition in intention.  An
> assemblege that results from the play of natural forces
> may thus be beautiful, but it is not art.  On the other hand,
> an object made by a artist -- that is an object intended
> primarily or importantly to satisfy aesthetic criteria --
> may be ugly, silly, stimulating, thought-provoking, beautiful,
> etc., etc., etc.  What *value* it has for us (individually
> and collectively), in other words, is separate from its
> status as a work of art.  

thank you, sid, for your stimulating post.  i hope i'm not boring 
everyone with this thread, but it interests me greatly.  i'm not familiar 
with the philosophical definition of intention- are you refering to an 
attitude inherent in the creation of an art work, or a label of it's 
status as art- i.e. duchamps urinal.  are jack the drippers works 
intentional? and if it is the second case, it seems a short step away 
from the dead end of "everything is are because i say it is so", 
something i can't believe.

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]