P3D Re: What is not Art?

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh good, my favorite topic.

I only go occasionally, but I usually find my visits to museums and
galleries affecting and inspiring.  Not having seen the Denver exhibit,
I can’t comment on the specific works, but from the descriptions I take
it they were exhibited in isolation.  Usually one needs to see a body of
work to understand an artist’s intentions and thereby appreciate the
works.  Since rules in the art world are ever-changing it is quite easy
for a work, or a whole body of work, to gain respect despite being empty
or even being downright fraudulent.  But I take it that museums try to
show works of proven integrity.

To address your question, I’d say it is not art if it is not designed to
elicit a specific set of ethereal reactions in its audience.  The higher
the quality of the art the more finesse it employs and the more
multifaceted it appears. By that standard, incidental piles of dirt
would not be art.  Your dog wrapped in aluminum foil would probably be
bad art, with or without green paint.  Most photographs, even 3D, are
taken for documentary purposes thus would not be art.  But there is no
reason a selected set of snapshots cannot be shown to good artistic
effect.  Of course, one can see ugliness in anything.  However, any art
work of integrity contains essential elements of beauty waiting to be
experienced.

Oleg Vorobyoff

Rod Sage wrote:


>But are they art? If all those pieces are art, then the brick on any
>building is art. A pile of dirt and weeds in my yard is art. The ever
>changing image on my computer screen is art. The hole in my jeans is
>art. etc. etc. I could wrap my dog in aluminum foil, throw some green
>paint on him, hang him in a tree, and call him art. "Space Dog in
Tree".
>
...and so on.