I assumed that (significance) as a given.
If not significant, why would it (need to) have a proper name?
There is sufficient significance in the highlighted part my definition:
Art is the conscious expression or application of creative human skill and imagination, producing aesthetic work, primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power by a group of people.
You argued that an unconsciously created product of significance can be called art as well, and I don't call that art but a lucky incident (serendipity). Since it is different, it has it's own proper name (sorry if you don't like the word, I did not make it up).
Is the word 'conscious' the only part where our definitions of art differ?
I think so, yes.
You seem to treat conscious and unconscious as two things that can't be involved both at the same time. They always are...
Curious if your are excluding something stemming more from the "Subconscious" as well, Ralph?
The whole point of art is that it's useless, it doesn't feed us, clothe us or enhance our lives in a practical, measurable way. Instead it's the raison d'etre of all the practical, measurable activities.
I've heard it said that our best work is often a manifestation of that which we are unable to express any other way.
I've heard it said that our best work is often a manifestation of that which we are unable to express any other way... and I largely agree.
Shawn
I have some of these too, but I consider them serendipity, not art. Art is a conscious process, not a lucky incident. Both can make good photographs, but there is a difference.
Owning a gallery, I can positively say that art brings a lot of pleasure to those who care to look for it. We have many people that come to enjoy the art. While they might not be able to afford to buy it that is fine with us. in my mind the true value of art is seeing people enjoy it.
You might as well tie a paint brush to a donkey's tale then. ...
Don't confuse me any more than I am already, I don't want to waste time contemplating my navel, I Just shoot pictures.
Then let me ask you the question, I really need the answer to:
Is it true, in your experience as a gallery owner, that some artist can be perfectly happy, creating art purely for themselves?
Pretty hostile responses toward something that feeds us. I don't consider art making/viewing/listening/consuming to be either navel gazing, or junk. It's as basic a need as food.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?