| sapphi_snake said: You should be careful. Everything is created through a particular skill or craft, but not everything is art. IF you extend the definition this far, you'll wind up with aberrations, like plumbing being an art. |
Yeah, I know. Just to clarify, the definition I used requires that all its points be true in order to be art. So sure, things like plumbing could meet the skill/craft requirement but it would also have to be a creative expression of ideas/imagination to classify it as art. But hey, if someone wants to argue about plumbing being art, I'm all ears ! (even though I would probably disagree anyway)
I thought about adding something about intent (an evident one) and aesthetics, but those terms could add more questions than answers... and I would have to be careful to clarify that by aesthetically pleasing you can't assume beauty, as I believe not all art tries to be that. Maybe expanding on said concept by saying something like sensually pleasing (appealing to the senses, whether it's considered "beautiful" or "ugly") could work, but I wasn't sure about it. Anyway, as I see it, the concept of "art" will constantly be in "motion" as long as we discover new ways to express ourselves, because these applications will force us to constantly review our interpretation of it (like it happened with movies and how it's happening now with videogames). A perpetual work in progress...
Differences aside, this whole discussion was certainly useful to me. I never analysed the whole concept of art like this before. I'll shut up now though...
