[OM] OT Art - was - TOPE: Landscapes

[Charles Loeven]

>One of my frustrations within the fine arts community is encountering a
>few  [IMO snobs] who define "art" as something that has properties and
>meaning  beyond pure representation; then define photography as being
>purely  representational (it can *never* be anything more than that);
>then proceed  to assert:  therefore, photography is *not* and *never*
>will be art.  This  is a non-argument.  The formal logic is sound (its
>structure) which makes  it deceptive; the informal logic (its content)
>is fallaciously founded on  premises with completely arbitrary
>definitions.
One of my favorite things to do is go to an art gallery that is having a
special or new showing.  I used to work in Laguna Beach California and there
were no shortages of them.  I still go when I visit the area.
Ever wonder who those people are that stand around talking to a bored artist
and
try to make you feel uncomfortable?
My take is this, they are art stores not galleries.  Those people are
pretentious snobs
and the artist would rather be somewhere else but he needs the money.
The work is usually good on its own and it does not need a snob to explain
it.
I go because I like the pictures or whatever and the wine is free.

Is it art?  It is if you would hang it up to decorate your home.
I have photos all over my home.

Charlie "the unsophisticated"



< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >