Here's what I'm against: it's all subjective. That's pure bullshit. Everybody here knows what they mean when they describe something as well-written. Whether they've bothered to articulate what their standards are or not, they have some sense of those standards.
Those standards are culturally and historically derived and (necessarly) subject to argument and disagrement.
Please explain to me how standards can be subject to argument and disagreement and not be subjective.
Because you really can't have it both ways.
Relatedly, has anyone else seen My Kid Could Paint That? Because it's a very well put-together little movie, and addresses many of these very points.
Hmm, it occurs to me that bubble gum music isn't all the different to music than Michael Bay is to movies. Is bubble gum music art? Some of it? None of it? All of it?
Just throwing that out there (like a bomb).
I am wondering if something that David is not clearly articulating (sorry to put words in your mouth - correct me!) is that he sees a difference between art as determined by the standards of our current mainstream/elite culture - we have relatively objective standards of what is art, although there are envelope-pushers and debates around the fringes - vs the subjectivity of defining art when viewed in the long run of human history and/or human culture (i.e. an ancient Greek would not see Mondrian as art, nor would a rural Papua New Guinean native.)
I think it's all subjective, but then, I'm an anthropologist.
Also, wrt to Harry Potter, I was being flippant; it occurred to me that perhaps Harry Potter is the 'reference to Nazis' of online conversations about defining art.
Also, wrt to Harry Potter, I was being flippant; it occurred to me that perhaps Harry Potter is the 'reference to Nazis' of online conversations about defining art.
Shall we call that "flea's law" then?
-bumps dirt-covered fists with Jars-
I wish I was dirt covered. Stupid lab.
I don't really watch it, but there was one episode where they were talking about pollen, and they had a fungus spore on the screen. A fungus! Also, shows like that always talk about carbon dating in stupid, stupid ways. Although I don't know if Bones has been guilty of that.
It's mostly about human remains too, which is very much not my specialty.
Okay, I just asked the osteo who sits next to me, and she started ranting. She DOES NOT like it. Something about picking up a skull and the madible not falling off.
In this conversation, I am Sue. Probably because we both come from theatre, which I think is a lot harder to define as an art than the visual or writing arts. If we are going with David's defininition of Art, I think most of what is on Broadway probably wouldn't qualify, but I think those people acting and directing an designing are still artists.
Of course, I once wrote a paper on how Stage Management was an art, and not a craft (or tech), because (among other things) when you were calling the show, if you were good, it wasn't necessarily about the cues you wrote in the book on the specific line, but about that particular performance, in that moment, and how it was differently paced every time.
When I was working full-time in theatre, I listed my "occupation" as 'theatre artist" even though I was working on bad productions of Children's theatre that were probably only momentarily capital "A" art.
