Quote:
|
Originally Posted by derrida
Rez: I'm not really going to address your second two statements, because archaeologists have uncovered plenty of man-made objects, often a great deal more intricate or delicate than stone or clay figurines, dated well before 30,000 BC.
.
|
yes, ok.. stone and clay figurines... you ever figure thatere were other mediums of art that cant stay preserved for 30,000 years? to say that people had no use for art X many years back isabsurd, art isn't *only* about something hidden, it's personal expression, and the audience decides if anything is ~hidden~ in it. that said, there's about a thousand different approaches to art... it can be whimsical, serious, art to challenge art (ie: a shoe made of earwax), all the way up to llinking aspects of todays society together to supposedly show how fucked things are... from what i read, everything is based on the notion that art is supposed to absolutely mean something *hidden*, or, for that matter, anything at all.
i also think art does not need to be "accorded" anything. it pretty much is... we instincually make art, lots of times without anyone thinking about it. for art to be accorded anything by us, who will always create it, seems dumb.
and also, it's not any show of un-telligence to use normal words you know... i understood everything you wrote, i just dont want to sound like someone completely self-important using similar vocabulary.
and you're right, i am suspicious... someone who writes that we're all better off without art is either someone desperate for attention/outrage or has a totally narrow, absolutist, or overly complicated view of life who can't seem to enjoy the simpler, basic things without becoming "bored"
Threaded Mode
