From: Halvor (halvorb@mac.com)
Date: 04/17/02-10:27:57 AM Z
on 18.04.02 00:51, Halvor at halvorb@mac.com wrote:
> Halvor asked what is art. Nobody seemed to answer. That's another
> dangerous job, but somebody's got to do it.
>
> Art is (as was officially decreed in the 1960s) whatever an artist does in
> an art context. The real question, however, is what is *GOOD* art. My
> definition is: a work with a visual component that tells or shows
> something we didn't know before. A photo that looks like existing photos
> is unlikely to do this, unless there's a conceptual "wink" -- or other
> manner or expression or offbeam take on it.
>
Having only attended the last two years of the 60's I missed that theory,
will think a bit. Although different choise of words I might actually agree.
Probably stupid question but, with "officially decreed" could you elaborate
..
Halvor
(Another one of my ideas done before.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST