Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
Re: Animals and Art
[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]gregjuli
Wed, 16 Dec 1998 17:20:39 -0600
Thank you Ron for bringing up some very valid points. I do think this one is
intriguing and fun.
Ron you mentioned that animal art possibly lacks the very quality we enjoy in
human work, but some might beg to differ. Especially those of us that have or
had pets. I'm throwing this out for us to ponder. Many people with pets have
noticed how their animals are very sensitive to their owners feelings/ moods.
Also sometimes their pets seem to know in advance their needs. There have
been many stories documented on heroic deeds of animals and those who have
been lost and made it back home. Were all these instances because of animal
intinct? Who knows unless someone was an animal in their last life how an
animal really feels or thinks. Who's to say what an animal thinks ?
As far as beauty of natural things, some consider them God's works of art.
Why do we feel the need to expand the category of art? Why not?
Happy Holidays to All!
"R. Moore" wrote:
What chimps and elephants, cats and ducks do withpaint and clay, etc. can be
fascinating, lovely, visually impressive,etc., but doesn't it lack the very
quality we look for in human artwork that makes it so very special as a
vehicle for exposing the special human way of thinking, seeing, living, and
responding? There are natural objects, made by neither humans nor any other
animals, that I find captivatingly beautiful--waterfalls, foggy beaches,
twilit mountains,desert flowers, etc.--and yet, although I value them very
highly aesthetically, I am not tempted to call them ART. Why are we inclined
to expand the category of ART to include non-human creations? What is it that
tempts us to be expansive in that direction?
> Ron Moore