>>"It seems that everything visual and hand-made in Anglo-Saxon language
culture is ART."
Everything SENSUAL, maybe. But, we do have a profound bias for our eye's
experience, at least in this culture. And, we can and do get around the
requirement for art to be "made" or "hand-made" by metamorphizing
"special" found natural objects or industrially manufactured objects, such
as bottle racks or toilets a'la Duchamps, into art.
>>"If we keep those standards one really can say : everyone is an artist.
No wonder that there are the daily problems to distinguish whether it is
good or bad. It could even be THE reason that the question about good and
bad art arose."
Gotta laugh. Yes, indeed, you may have something here.
>>"To decide between good art-bad art goes about two types of art:
A: Museum art , gallery art, artists art. The kind of stuff the artworld
considers belonging to art.
B: Work of our students."
>>"About A: There is a kind of common sense. Common sense however, depends
art literacy, culture and time."
And the body of possible knowledge constituting "literacy" begins to
exceed the number of people available to know it or be profoundly literate
and, knowledge becomes trapped in archives. Does the art teacher teach the
small area he truly knows OR does she encourage each student to find and
share a specialty?
The problem with cultural literacy (including the textual and the visual)
-- in the USA at least -- lies in our ability to distinguish the necessary
literacies of the Superculture from the requsite literacies of its
supportive demographic cultures and microcultures. Significant issues and
elements change as the context shifts from the local to the global and
local coinstituancies frequently like to pretend to the global "throne".
Does the European Economic Community face similar challenges?
>>"Back to ART.
If we only show our students (museum) art that is left after so many
we will never give them insight in qualities."
Amen, amen, amen!