View Single Post
  #95  
Old April 21st, 2013, 02:39 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,665
Default

I'm still not convinced, Asher. Objects made exclusively for their utility was the credo of the Bauhaus school, yet their works are generally considered to be "art". Conversely, when people take pictures of their young children, they use that medium as a vessel for their emotions, yet most of these pictures would be refused by a museum and mocked by critics.

Let me broaden a bit the subject: at which point in history was the idea born that artists are people rising above the rest of humanity for their unique ability to have a "vision", emotions or whatever?

You are missing the flip side of the coin in that game: for defining art and artist, you must also define what is not art and who is not an artist. You must take a whole collection of objects which may even be of value or be nice to look at and decide that the whole lot won't be accepted. You must take a crowd of people and decide that none of them are worth of the "artist" designation that this or that single other person chosen by critics enjoys.

Because we humans have all feelings emotions and we all imagine and create things and we all embed our feelings in inanimate objects. That simply is a feature of the human species and starts when we are small children.
Reply With Quote