Page 1 of 1
Posted on July 10 at 8:40 p.m.
Although I can understand the disgrutlement of pk, art is an aesthetic and as such can be considered a wavelength in emotion. And because it is a very high and short wavelength, quite close to the soul of man, it can be beautiful or ugly. Sometimes artists depict art forms that are so ugly, that the sight of such produces an emotional response. Art therefore can be considered art when it allows contribution by the viewer. Symmetry therefore can be beautiful or ugly. Citing it as generality does not disprove it relevance. And if the argue is against symmetry, then demonstrate its idiocy - if you can.
I was very much interested in your comment about whales. Having written an award-winning book on them, I have discovered that they do communicate and communicate well. And when one considers the size of their brains and the intricacies of their communication, it requires no stretch of the imagination or shift in one's reality to give credence to a whale's ability to recognize an asthetic. Truthfully, it is only in recent years that scientists are discovering just how smart these creatures are. The problem is and has been always man, as he attempts to anthropomorphise these creatures as having human traits and tastes.
Some of the greatest artist/painters used only color to create emotion. I think that for one to really argue against your point they really had to be better prepared and not bent on argueing just for argue's sake!
On Is It Art?