[Dixielandjazz] Some questions on defining "Art"

[Bill Gunter]

Hi all,

Russ writes:

>When I was in college we discussed the meaning of art and it seemed we 
>concluded
>that art was something created by a person that was appreciated by other
>people.  The more people who appreciated it, the better was the art. Those
>creations that were appreciated by fewer people was not good art and a 
>creation
>appreciated by nobody was not art at all.

This implies that "art" exists in a spectrum all the way from really bad 
"art" to really good "art" and the determining factor is the number of 
people who appreciate it.

But even so, "bad" art is still "art" in the same sense that "bad" feelings 
are still "feelings."

The last sentence Russ wrote: " . . . a creation appreciated by nobody was 
not art at all."

That goes back to the question "is a painting not hung in a museum, and 
hence not appreciated by anybody, still "art?"

We're not gonna get anywhere on this debate because the word exists in too 
many contexts and will not submit to any specific definition.

I suggest we forget it and decide that even if we can't agree on what "art" 
actually is, we certainly know it when we see it (or hear it) .

If you call something "artistic" I promise not to disagree with you.

Cheers,

Bill Gunter
jazzboard at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here. 
https://broadband.msn.com