PersAbsynthFaerie

Thanks for the

I just read your response to someone on my page on how to approach an illustrator about work... That's awesome! I wish this was more of a common-knowledge thing!

ur being very quiet

Hello. I saw your comment on [link] , and I thought your response is interesting, so here's my reply! Hopefully you could tell me what you think about the topic too?

And I'm posting here because comments on the forum threads look fucked up atm.

--

Hey. I know this is a really, really old thread, but I'm doing it as a module in my Lang Arts class here so I just thought I'd ask you something based on what you've said here.

(Although my paper's tomorrow so that's not really going to help)

They gave us 4 definitions for art, though art is a open concept so it doesn't mean something has to have all four or only one of these to be considered art:

1. Art is an expression of the artist's emotions, through which he becomes conscious of the nature of the emotion portrayed.
2. Art is anything that has a certain way of lines and colours combined, such that it evokes aesthetic emotion from its viewers.
3. Art is the artist conveying a message.
4. Art is whatever people from the art field say it is.

But in this case, would a dance be considered art because it evokes feelings in you, even though the feelings aren't aesthetic emotion of lines and colours persay?
Does it mean blind people can never, ever appreciate art?
Then music isn't art because there's no visual form to look at?
And what if people from the art world have clashing views?

And if we can find all these loopholes, doesn't it mean like what you said, that honestly we're looking in the wrong place and that art is just... what we appreciate and view as art?


Now I'm going to go pray that you see this before tomorrow, HAHAHA.