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.
[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]marcia m eaton
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 04:09:54 -0500
One final point from someone who tends to be in the "animals don't create
art" camp. Several theorists, for example Arthur Danto (see for example,
his book The Transfiguration of the Commonplace) argue that in order for
something to be art it has to be "about" something. I agree and think this
is another reason for being sceptical about animal's making art. Ron is
right (as usual!) in pointing out that we have to be careful or we will
lose the power of the word 'art', that is, if we allow too much then
everything becomes art and the distinction between art and nonart
completely breaks down. This may not bother some people, but it bothers
me. When I doodle during department meetings, I don't consider it art, in
part because it is not "about" anything. When I draw an ugly picture of a
hostile colleague, that is art---though never very good, I confess. Happy
Reply: marcia m eaton: "Re: animal art"