Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Smith
Here's a rhetorical question: I saw a news report recently about a dog who could paint. Okay, we've all seen such things - animals with paintbrushes in their mouths spreading random color on a piece of paper. The dog is color blind and can't see many of the colors that its spreading around, but if it touches my soul, is it art?
|
Per si? Right now I think there's no art without Intent, a Purpose. You could place the dogs paintings in a context where it would become art, just because a dog paints them isn't enough. Imagine the dog was owned by someome who instead of just saying "look what lovely doodles my dog can do", it would be by someone that used the dog action to convey a stand: to ask, for instance, what separates his action from humans. If he trained the dog to paint imperfect copies for instance of Mona Lisa? A dog painting such would be just a gimmick, someone using it on purpose to say something against copies (or pro copies) could be another thing.
And now you say, "bah, you're just doing pseudo-intelectual stuff ", and I ask, without someone to give meaning to a work, to assign it an Intent, what art can there be? It's the only communality I find in all works of art. The existence of Intent.
just a few thoughts...