Aurora's question: how is Goodman contributing to the definition of art?
In short, I dont think he really is. I agree with Aurora's point that Goodman's suggestion to ask when is art rather than what is art doesnt really change the question at all. Though his suggestion to look at when something becomes art is relevant, I don't think its a substantial replacement for the question of what is art; I see it as more of a further qualification of what makes art.
Q: I had a question in regard to Goodman's example about when something becomes or ceases to be art... If one were to hang the Mona Lisa in front of a hole in the wall, why is it any less of a work of art? If its use is not interfering with the viewers experience, how does it change the piece's "art-ness"? In your opinion, does it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment