wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Gardens, a few that I have noticed.
Roger Howard 2006-Jul-13 12:59:00
After working at a major art museum and research center for five years, the one thing I came away with for certain is my desire to never try to define art for others. Its a loaded, political, and undefinable term - art is in the eye of beholder, and as such the same object will be treated differently by every viewer. Some people are obsessed with the medium itself as if that defines art, others think it is defined by the degree of effort or skill, and others by the intent of the creator.
Whatever it is, its up to each person to determine the extent and content of what they consider art. Comic books may be gutter trash or a work of ectasy, depending who you ask. Photography is still looked down upon as even being potential art, and lets not talk about dreaded digital photography (I know a famous photo curator who makes a distinction between digital and film images, as if 50 years ago he would have looked down on images shot on a particular film stock). And some people think anything that has been processed by a computer is not art.
Go figure... I find it best not to debate this point. Its not too different, in my mind, from debating the existance of God.
Ciao.r
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]