I will try and make a work of art fit this criteria.
A paper dart (aeroplane) works I think.
1. is human activity of no practical purpose (teacher says) and is something new.
2. included a message to the girl in the front row.
3. communicated more than intended.
4. included a reference to plans of expansion!
5. initiated a pleasant reaction and made her turn round.
6. this causes teacher to order confiscation of dart.
7. unintentional result ……..lively reaction!
Well not very convincing but you try!
Quite so. The definition is a bit on the broad side.
I intended no criticism of your definition, it is a very good one. Artists and people who work in arts and so many people who have time have argued over the definition of art and whether a particular object is art. It often ends in tears and one is no closer to the truth. Art Forums on the internet are a testament to this. Nevertheless your contribution will make us all think again about what we are doing.
Glad you’re back at the keyboard, Robert.
I prefer the original usage of ‘art’ — as a word that’s only the first part of a phrase – like “art of beekeeping”, “art of love”, “art of war” – or “art of European figure sculpture” etc. (allowing that “art” is arguably “arts” in each of those usages)
I don’t care what an unmodified “art” might mean — just as I don’t
“love aesthetics in the broadest possible sense” (as Eolake has written)
If aesthetics is not about the kind of beauty that drives me crazy — why should I care about it?
“If aesthetics is not about the kind of beauty that drives me crazy — why should I care about it?”
Chris has a sort of Yeatsian streak!