Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Thornton
You don't need to understand everything before you can say anything. There are plenty of objective studies of human behaviour that tell us valuable things - even some about our behaviours in relation to art.
|
Sure... but you were talking about how the mechanics of the brain reacts to art... and I contend that we don't know enough about what the brain does with objective data to determine how it handles subjective data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Thornton
Anyway, art is what you like  |
Is it? If I say that I don't like Picasso's cubism period, does his work cease to be art?
But wait... even though I don't like the work, I can objectively see what he was trying to accomplish. So, is it art now? Or does the fact that I can only react to it objectively take the art out of it?
I can say the same things about poems: I can appreciate the rhyme and meter, the metaphor and the simplicity; but they don't move me. I have no emotional response to them. So are they not art?
But wait... I like
The Fairly Oddparents' "Pixie Rap," and Jim Carrey's rendition of "Cuban Pete" from
The Mask. So are they art?
I was repulsed enough by Giger's
Alien to have nightmares. Is that art?
I think the painting "The End" is just
stoopid. Is it not art?
Some people say art evokes memories. So does making myself a cup of iced tea. So is that act art?
Some say art evokes emotions. So does my swerving my car to avoid a reckless driver. Is that act art?
My point is: Art is simply too nebulous and personal to actually
define... which may be the best definition of art there is.