But they'd say that the meta-narrative is your one abt what does & doesn't constitute art.
That's different objective criteria to 'requires melody'. Neither is relevant to ppl enjoying it
-
-
Enjoying it is irrelevant. It just need to be recognisable as music (not a recording of ->
-
a waterfall or babies crying) to be art.
-
No, that's the point. Art is an experience. Fitting objective criteria less relevant.
-
It's a *specific* kind of experience. If we allow any experience to be art, then the word->
-
It's an object made to produce an aesthetic response. No way to tell ppl it;s not art.
-
I'm not denying ppl the right to produce or enjoy whatever they want.
-
I'm just making a philosophical argument that (I hope) might clarify semantics.
-
I don't think it does. It just clarifies your understanding of art which I feel misses point.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
And this is how ppl generally understand art.An object made to produce aesthetic pleasure/wonder
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Yep. That;s better.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
