Art is art: X=Y

[Greg Marsh <gdmarsh@gdi.net>]

>> Art *is* art because I say.
>This cannot be so.  Simply because if art is art because you say so,
>what stops us from taking this one step further to saying a cracker is a
>cracker because I say so.  

Art is something that affects you and moves you as a representation of
something else.  Here is your logic:

YOU ARE ARGUING:  "Art" is not "art"  =  X is not X :  For the most part,
other than the mathmatical ramifications, you are right!  It it can be
quite difficult thing to express.

I AM ARUGING:  Art (X): "a song, a painting, a poem, the perception of a
piece of artisic human expression" IS Art (Y) "makes me feel a certain way,
has a desired impact, perceived enjoyment, indivudual internalization of
the creative outlet of a particular form of human expression."  Otherwise:
X IS Y...this *IS* right and this is the argument we are discussing here.

>Art no different than anything else.
Well, except for the perception and expression of human experience, I guess
in finest reductive nature, you have found the essential nature of art.

>I was just talking to a good friend of mine, a muscian, 
>about the sad state of rock n'roll.  
What does your "muscian" friend say about the "state of music" in general?

>We came to the conclusion that the music itself has barely 
>changed a bit since its humble beginings.  
True or not, you are doing some *major* shifting of gears here....are you
talking about "music" or "rock music" or "art" or what?

>This was formerly my biggest reason why rock is not art, 
>but while talking to him, we came to a better conclusion.  
It sounds like you came to an agreement, but not much of a conclusion.

>We decided that the line drawn between art and entertainment 
It's nice that you did this, but there is no reason to do so.  I would
conclude, that the only difference, might have something to do with...in a
general sence, entertainment is something that you pay, art (in general) is
not.

>is simply that art has an aestetic goal.  
No it does not!  Art does not have to be "pretty" to be concidered good or
even great!  What made you come to this result?

>Sit-coms, flowers and sunsets may move you, but they are not art.  
Oh, but they are McGoo!  Come on.  What do you concider the work of viable
artistic work of hollywood directors...you've dismissed the entire
entertainment industry.  Their whole basis for existence is on artistic
output, albeit arguably *not* "great" by any means.  

Again, I say, you have a *very* narrow definition of art.  Tell us what you
would include as essential characturistics of art....not "great" art, not
aesthetic art, not "fine" art...just *art*!  I defy you to come up with
anything other what what has already been stated here.

>Poetry, the good stuff at least, has an aestetic goal, hence it is art.  
You yourself acknowledge it here saying, "at least the good stuff".  Damn
in, art does not have to be "good" to be considered art!!!!!!!!!!!!

>We were unable to find the aestetic goal of rock, in fact we agreed that
there
>isn't one; therefore, it is not art.  
Come on now.....music is art, "rock music" *is* music: rock music is art!

If there is no aesthetic goal of rock music, then what can you tell us is
the aesthetic goal of MUSIC, as a general catagory?

>There is a fine line between entertainment and art, rock is entertainment,
good poetry >crosses this line
Again, you are qualifying saying "good" poetry.  What do you think of
shitty poets?  They are artist too...but to qualify like you did...you must
index it properly by saying, "they are artist, just not very good ones"....

Did you do your writing McGoo?  Tell us what you learned!

Sincere regards!