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: Definition of Art

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:04:37 EST

Happy Holiday
Ron this statement is one of the reasons that science and art remain so
exciting to teach. We are always readdressing and reevaluating our view,
context, definition, criteria, philosophical stance. To me that is what
breathes such life into the discussion. Rather than give up and say we will
never define, decide or determine, we explore and construct a working
definition for us given that time and circumstance knowing that it will be
challenged, like scientific inquiry.
Debi B-H
In a message dated 12/18/98 1:19:50 AM, ronmoore wrote:

<<Now, one nice thing about the theory is that it takes account of
the time-problem Ms. Kerns mentions. Something could have been made at an
earlier time without any intent of its being regarded (then) as an
artwork, and yet, because folks later on DEEMED it art, it would become
art at that later date. And of course it could subsequently become
non-art, and later again, art, and so on. It all depends on what goes on
in the artworld within which each population lives. And artworlds, like
art itself, are always on the change.>>