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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm not denying ppl the right to produce or enjoy whatever they want.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BristolBen @HPluckrose and
I'm just making a philosophical argument that (I hope) might clarify semantics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think it does. It just clarifies your understanding of art which I feel misses point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I wasn't discussing the point (purpose) of art at all, only its definition ->
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
But I think it is defined by its purpose. Can we leave it here?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes and I think it's too broad a def. We can disagree and leave it here.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't think its broader. Just different.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But get into the muddle of having to understand its purpose (or lack of? Must it lack purpose?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I might have to write something abt this but I think its function is understood quite simply.
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.