Aurora asked: "what are the consequences of not having a set definition of art?"
I think the main setback to not having a set definition of art is that anyone could consider anything to be "art". Though I believe in freedom of opinion, I think that not having a solid definition or even general idea of what constitutes art could potentially undermine the entire endeavor. Could the concept of "art" even exist without some basic form of description or definition?
On the other hand, this could just be a dramatized reaction to what could happen. It very well could be that, without a set definition of art, many people happen to believe in certain things as satisfying their own personal definition of art and other things as "on the fringe"- could be considered art, but might not be, but we will never be certain because there is no set definition. All in all, I think that having a somewhat solid definition of art is mainly to satisfy humankind's need for organized, sensical understanding and/or classification.
Q: If you could only chose one, what in your oppinion would be the one most important aspect in the definition of art and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment