Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:36:31 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Organization: |
Taylor Studios, Inc. |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Betty:
>
> The questions that your are asking (so nicely and modestly) are the
> questions that intellectuals of one sort or another--philosophers,
> critics, aestheticians, historians, and even artists--have been
> asking themselves and eachother for centuries (millenia?) They are
> hard to answer to anyone's (let alone everyone's) satisfaction. But I
> do think that raising the questions out loud and in your own mind as
> serious ones, and worth engaging with, is in itself a pretty good
> answer.
>
> Eric Siegel
> [log in to unmask]
Yes, I agree there is no answer that we would all agree on. However,
Mr. Webster went out on a limb and defined art.
art: 1. skill acquired by experience or study: knack 2. a branch of
learning: one of the humanities 3. systematic use of knowledge or
skill in making or doing things 4. the use of skill and imagination
in the production of things of beauty; also: works so produced 5.
artfulness
From that point of view it is something that is produced via a
technical skill.
Betty Brennan
|
|
|