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.

Lesson Plans

Re: Animals and Art

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
R. Moore (ronmoore)
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:53:33 -0800 (PST)

Hi Joseph,
I've got a definition in mind--George Dickie's (THE ART CIRCLE);
and now I'm trying to open up a bit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oops! The problem is that if I open up my definition wide enough
to include living creatures, I find that many of the usual uses I have for
the word "art" are defeated. What would a "School of Art" teach? What
should the National Endowment for Arts endow? Definitions are often
overly restrictive; but exploding them leads to problems that are at least
as grave.

On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Joseph Augusta wrote:

> R. Moore wrote:
> >
> > Dear Joseph,
> > I fully agree that geese are beautiful, both in their appearance
> > and in their actions; but being beautiful doesn't in itself qualify
> > something as art. Mount Ranier is beautiful; but it isn't art ...
> True, but the mountain isn't alive--and animals are--big difference.
> You're confusing art with the art object. Try this: form a definition
> of art in your mind--art with a capital A if you must, and apply your
> definition to your beautiful geese. Then open up a little. Does it
> work?
> Best wishes,
> Joseph