View Single Post
Old 05-30-2017, 09:55 AM
Mertico Mertico is offline

Mertico's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 7,261


Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
Fundamental ambiguities aside, your definition of art is myopic even by historical standards. By general consensus, art has as much business imitating the terrestrial or even the profane as it does the divine.

You'd get along great with Tolstoy.

But you, like him, seem to be drawing a line between 'good and moral' art and 'bad and immoral' art, rather than between 'art' and 'not-art.' As well you might, because defining this word is a fool's errand. It doesn't even stem from the right roots.

Also like Tolstoy, you presume to understand what elevates and what diminishes the human condition, and suppose that only art which is in line with what you believe to be the current cultural ethos (namely, your own personal perspective) is 'appropriate' or 'true' art.

Ultimately, art is a meaningless label which was only recently applied by the idle rich to describe what they believed to be beautiful. Like beauty, it is subjective. You have been conned, sir, into believing that 'true art' ever actually existed.
Your failing comes from the idea that beauty is subjective, when it is not.

I was also using the term art in a very loose sense and could replace it in a few places with other words or phrases.

Originally Posted by Krainz View Post
So, what do you think of Caravaggio and Andy Warhol?
An artist and a CIA plant.
Reply With Quote