Quote:
Originally Posted by SPUCK
Tedious Art
Another words art for tedious' sake, since it has no other saving grace.
|
Man there are a lot of art poo-pooers in this place.
Art isn't defined as "what you think is purty."
There is no definition, really, that is agreed upon. This is why it's called 'art' and not 'science.'
Quote:
|
Contemporary definitions are of two main sorts. One distinctively modern, conventionalist, sort of definition focuses on art's institutional features, emphasizing the way art changes over time, modern works that appear to break radically with all traditional art, and the relational properties of artworks that depend on works' relations to art history, art genres, etc. The less conventionalist sort of contemporary definition makes use of a broader, more traditional concept of aesthetic properties that includes more than art-relational ones, and focuses on art's pan-cultural and trans-historical characteristics.
|
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
I remember my first art history class in college. "Those colored squares? You could do that? Well you didn't, not first, anyway."
I think those maps are neato-keen.