Branching off of my previous post, I had a theory come to mind when I realized how difficult it is to define art or aesthetics because of the wide range of artistic categories. And then it hit me; has anyone ever tried to define the small, specific, closed concept forms of art, and then defined art as anything that fits into one or more of those categories?
Granted, this may not seem like a venerated definition for such a grand thing as art, but it certainly does get the mechanical nonsense of "what is art?" out of the way. And in light of my recent statement, true art is not the emotional or subjective perception of itself; it is the physical, sensible form of which the emotions or subjective feelings are evoked from. The non-mechanical aspects of art, I would argue, deal primarily with aesthetics, not the art itself.
My question to you is, is this an acceptable approach to defining art?
No comments:
Post a Comment