well what you learn and what they teach can be two totally different things, neh? ;) I would hate to think that anything is art as it takes away from the thought, skill and passion of the creation.
that definition doesn't have to degrade 'good' art, just as a prefab home doesn't degrade charters cathedral just because they both are architecture. one item compared to another within the same category doesn't effect both negatively, if anything, it might make you appreciate the quality more, since you have seen how bad it could have been.
and look at the readymade, there is no skill, and (sometimes) little thought put into many of the choices made, the only factor that allows them to be art is the fact that they were chosen by and artist
or abstract expressionism, again, lots of thought and passion, but no skill.
or tom friedman, often well respected, but his work is almost all thought or OCD based. a 1mm ball of feces, a piece of paper that had been stared at for 1000 hours, stuff like that. (again, not necessarily good in my opinion, but hey, he won awards)
you could program a computer to be an artist (generally it might have to be removed from it's functional aspect, but not always), why not? that's just technology mixing with art, like kinetic art, or dan flavins flourescent tubes.
(note: this isn't really my opinion, i'm not sure where i stand on this, but i do understand and in some way empathise with its reasoning)
well what you learn and what they teach can be two totally different things, neh? ;)
I would hate to think that anything is art as it takes away from the thought, skill and passion of the creation.
that definition doesn't have to degrade 'good' art, just as a prefab home doesn't degrade charters cathedral just because they both are architecture. one item compared to another within the same category doesn't effect both negatively, if anything, it might make you appreciate the quality more, since you have seen how bad it could have been.
and look at the readymade, there is no skill, and (sometimes) little thought put into many of the choices made, the only factor that allows them to be art is the fact that they were chosen by and artist
or abstract expressionism, again, lots of thought and passion, but no skill.
or tom friedman, often well respected, but his work is almost all thought or OCD based. a 1mm ball of feces, a piece of paper that had been stared at for 1000 hours, stuff like that. (again, not necessarily good in my opinion, but hey, he won awards)
you could program a computer to be an artist (generally it might have to be removed from it's functional aspect, but not always), why not? that's just technology mixing with art, like kinetic art, or dan flavins flourescent tubes.
(note: this isn't really my opinion, i'm not sure where i stand on this, but i do understand and in some way empathise with its reasoning)