Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gilbert Plantinga jotted down the following: >> I *think* I recognize it when I see it, >> > Wasn't that like the US Supreme Court's definition of porn! Then again, I > don't think they're being particularly supreme at the moment =:O It just occurred to me that a better definition of "art" may be not to see it an independent property of an artifact or object, but as something that exists only in the interaction between a person and that object. In other words, nothing is art, until there is someone to see, listen, or otherwise experience it. (No sound of trees falling jokes, please! ;) Consequently, the question of whether Sherman's photography is art cannot be universally answered. It is art to me. It might be (shallow) art to B.D. It isn't art to Nick. To Benneton it would be an ad campaign. M. - -- Martin Howard | Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU | What boots up must come down. email: howard.390@osu.edu | www: http://mvhoward.i.am/ +---------------------------------------