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.
I've never seen Bones.
I have dug up bones, though!
Going back a bit...
I have absolutely no doubt that anti-depressants can negatively effect creativity.
I'm sure it can, but it can also have a positive effect. I'm Living Proof!
Since I've been on the anti-depressants my thought processes have been clearer and my energy has increased and there has been a corresponding increase in my creativity.
Most of my You'll All Pays were written while on the 'butrin Bullet Train and I'm writing more even today. Before the anti-depressants I was too busy trying to stay awake as my brain was mired in doldrums and was desperately diving for Dreamland in an effort to avoid the stupid horribleness of Every Day Life.
So, while I no longer experience (for the most part) the extremes of emotion that can drive creative output, I'm feeling much more creative now that I'm not enslaved to those same extremes.
This Post Is Entirely Subjective. Your 'Butrin (or Whatever) May Vary.
This Post Is Not Art.
...or is it?
(DUN dun dun...)
