But is it art? — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

This page's ID: 15114

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	Good points, DL. I have nothing against art for art's sake. In theory, I also think it is perfectly valid. I just wonder if it is really possible in reality--if it is possible for an artist to completely divorce a work of art from any other intent (both conscious and subconscious). I really don't have an answer for that... I'm just wondering. And you also have to remember that when I think of "art" I think first of writing, and it is very difficult to write something with no other intent but to create something beautiful. I'm trying to think of a work of literature that did not have "meaning," per se, and "The Jabberwocky" comes to mind, but it could easily be argued that the lack of meaning in that work was intended to illustrate something other than the aesthetic principle. Anyway, what do you think about that? Do you think it is possible in reality to have art purely for art's sake? ___________________________ Suho: [url=http://www.liminality.org]www.liminality.org[/url] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

Edit Post