Edward Manak asked; "What distinguishes art from everything else in existence? What makes art, art?"
Well, I would hate to merely reiterate the characteristics that I have developed for art, so I will answer the question in a different way. That is, I think your question rests upon a faulty premise or assumption. Does something distinguish art from everything else in existence?
I surely do think that there is a difference between art and everything else, but often times it is not distinguishable. Distinguishable, I believe, denotes a perceptible difference, and in that case means that often enough, a work of art will not distinguish itself from anything else. This is especially prudent in the world of modern art, whether it's Duchamp's "Fountain" or some other aesthetic misplacement.
If you did mean to ask what characteristics separate, objectively, art from everything else, than I suppose that the only one I can think of is intention. The ball placed upon the table was either done with artistic intent or absentmindedness. The only difference between the ball that is art and the ball that is not art is the intent.
Does the label of art affect your aesthetic response? Or is your aesthetic response the same whether or not you consider it art?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would not sully the arts by lumping in such "modern art" as Duchamp's insults to art as such masterworks as those by da Vinci, Vermeer, Vivaldi, etc. These true artists have done something distinct from Duchamp, specifically, that they have actually created something meaningful. I would therefore hold that there ARE differences between true art and a urinal.
ReplyDelete