4 ms·
To me, the standard is obvious: our lives are only so long, and there's only so much art we can enjoy in them. It doesn't matter where in the low end you draw t
by asdflkj 16y ago
To me, the standard is obvious: our lives are only so long, and there's only so much art we can enjoy in them. It doesn't matter where in the low end you draw the line between "art" and "not art". It's the high end that matters. Do you worry about the line between almost-food and barely-food? Or do you worry about what's good food, or the best food you can get?
The reason this painfully obvious idea has trouble being accepted is that most people enjoy food, and most people don't enjoy art. They need barely-art for the same reason kids need barely-beer. They don't like beer, but they want others to think they do.
- rubinelli 16y agoIs it fair then to say that "Art is what I like" would be a good definition?
- aristus 16y agoYes but from there it's a short hop to duchamps toilet and warhols "art is what you can get away with". You still have to do the work of discovering why you do or don't like a piece.
- asdflkj 16y agoI think PG has some valuable things to say about that: http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html