chaz wyman wrote:
"an historical fact"!!! I did not take you to be a positivist. ...
Only in the sense that most recorded artists appear to have been paid?
Necessary: so what you are saying is if a piece of art goes unsold, then it is not art. So lost cave paintings were never art, but if I find a palaeolithic carving AND sell it then it becomes art.
Are you selling it as art? Then yes I guess. How do we know that these cave paintings were 'art'? In yours and AS's view there are no conditions to judge it as such, just ones subjective opinion? We could say they are art by the categories of medium, manner and subject but I thought these in dispute?
OR if I paint two identical pictures but sell only one - then the one I do not sell is not art. That is stupid.
I'm not saying that the subjective view where you say they are art is not true, just that there is a communal judgement and its based upon whether someone else will exchange something for it. Why does a forgery get less than an original?
Sufficient: If I manage to sell any old shit on the pretext that it is art, then that makes it art? So if I am a grocer and sell a person an apple telling then it is art, then it is art - until he eats it - maybe his shit becomes art?
I thought you said it could be? If youare a grocer and you can sell it this way then art it becomes.
You don't get to validate false objectivity , simply by calling it intersubjective.
Why? It seems as good a name for 'objectivity' as any?
Just because a particular group of people who pretend to be experts nominate an object as art does not mean it is art.
You brought up the critics as example? But if they are not paying for it then I agree it does not.
What is to stop an association of grocers calling all apples art?
Nothing, lets see if they can sell them as it. But I'm puzzled as this is exactly your view I thought?