3 ms·
"but the perception of it's value" Of course. Art is a social construct and context dependent. There is no need to art mysticism where the works of art are som
by nabla9 2y ago
"but the perception of it's value"
Of course. Art is a social construct and context dependent. There is no need to art mysticism where the works of art are somehow inherently valuable or
meaningful.
> Mickey Mouse or Pokémon is the epitome of art, which I suspect many would disagree with.
"Art is anything you can get away with" – Marshall McLuhan (Andy Warhol just McLuhan and put the idea into practice)
- entuno 2y agoI don't mean that in some kind of "mystical" way, but in that other people perceive it to be valuable. For instance, a Picasso painting has very little intrinsic value to me. Given a choice, I wouldn't have one in my house. But the fact that other people are would be willing to pay me thousands (millions?) for it means that it does have value to me (because I can sell it) - but only in the same way that a gold bar or some share certificates do. Whereas the exact same painting by an unknown artist would have no value to me, because I don't want it and I can't sell it.