[lbo-talk] artsy-fartsy

[jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net]

> On Thu, 25 May 2006, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> 
>  I do believe, however, there are some universal features that define what 
>  art is.  One of them is that being considered a work of art requires a 
>  specific artistic talent or skill of transforming or controlling material 
>  objects.  If the creation of an object does not appear to involve any 
>  specific "artistic" skills or abilities and it is something that anyone 
>  can do, most people would not consider it art.

 

 With all due respect Woj, this has been pretty much the definition of a 

 philistine ever since Duchamp's fountain (the "my kid could do that" school 

 of art criticism).  With this definition you're throwing out masterworks in 

 just about every art movement of the 20th century.

 

 It's not like Duchamp didn't have skilz.  Check out his paintings in the 

 Annenberg collection in Philadelphia.  But insisting that he had to use them 

 to make art is like insisting you can't write a poem with a child's 

 vocabulary.

 

 Michael

So art is what elites tell us it is? 
Creating art requires the use of no skills? 
What are you saying is art? Anything one cares to label as such? I'd say that robs of the word of any 
meaning.

John Thornton