Yes, I too prefer museums to art galleries.Hobbes' Choice wrote:.Dalek Prime wrote:All I can say is, I'd rather spend a day in a beautiful forest than in an art gallery.
Music though. Now that would get my attention. I prefer human art appreciation through my ears.
I know what you mean. My dog and I discovered a previously unknown bit of natural woodland within a ten minute drive yesterday. But if i'd spent all day there, i'd want to go to a decent museum the following day. Modern galleries can go and f themselves.
best still - a decent set of bins and a ipod with a bit of Beethoven whilst you enjoy the woods
Does Mother Nature create the most beautiful, objective art?
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Does Mother Nature create the most beautiful, objective art?
- Conde Lucanor
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am
Re: Does Mother Nature create the most beautiful, objective art?
You're confusing art with beauty. Although they have been related many times in history, there have been beautiful things not considered as art and art that has not been beautiful.
Re: Does Mother Nature create the most beautiful, objective art?
Agree with Conde. And "what counts as art" has been expanded in the last century by conceptual art to "whatever you put in the museum." When you present something as art, like a dead fish or a rock, then by today's standards it is. The whole idea though is the fact that someone decided to put it in a museum, the human-doing with the intention of making art that makes it art, not the thing in itself.
And yes nature "gave" us the ability to make art and thus indirectly "made" art but its not art because nature didn't make it with that intention.
And yes nature "gave" us the ability to make art and thus indirectly "made" art but its not art because nature didn't make it with that intention.