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.
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 gregjuli wrote:
> 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