Quote:
Originally posted by beserker
The mere fact that you use words like ugly and beautiful in realation to the subject implies that you're talking about art...
|
You haven't read carefully, it seems... but the comment which leaves me blank is the one of Toxic UK. No problem, I'll try to explain it in clearer terms.
Of course, if you got what I was saying, the words "ugly" and "beautiful" are actually used for artistic purposes or can be used to describe an artwork, but they're in no way connected to the original idea of what art is. Are we talking about common sense? If so, I must add that many ther words are intended and/or used in the wrong way just because it's common sense to do it. Art is not something that is "beautiful". Art and beauty are not synonyms and an object that is "ugly" is not the opposite of an artistic product. This is because saying something is "beautiful" or "ugly" implies you're using taste to define/describe the object, and taste is too personal and not reliable enough to define art itself. The identity taste/art is definitely dead... Philosophers and artists of the last two centuries fought against this old principle of identity. If you still use this kind of theories to define art and artistic products, it means you're stuck to the XVIII century!
Artists have demonstrated that whatever you choose to be art can be it. Here goes again the bicycle wheel I was talking about in my previous post.... An amoeba, a bycicle wheel, a broken leg, dog food (Oh Andy Wharhol, where art thou?), being sick: what's the difference? (thanks Redpyramidhead for your long and interesting reply!)
If you don't want to read and you just want to analyze single words of my posts, do it. You'll always be missing the larger picture. Sorry, but you're using your "common sense" to talk about art: you cannot prove anything if you just use common sense and not an articulate theory.
BTW, I won't probably explain it in different terms, because this is not the right place for a lesson of Aesthetics
