--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only real test of great universal art is time. If a work > endures and speaks to every generation, one can say that it is great > art: a classic.
Oh goody, I love these types of discussions -- aesthetics! My background and attitudes about art are shaped more by writing, painting and music than photography, but I think the basic principles apply. I agree with Paul, time is the only true test. I believe art challenges, rearranges, annoys, disrupts, makes the viewer/reader/audience think about things in ways they would not have otherwise. Art makes you squirm. Perhaps this is the divide between "pop" art and "true" art: the former reassures and comforts, the latter reaches beyond the known and actually enlarges our concept of what is reality. Norman Rockwell is "pop" art and will be forgotten except as an artifact of his time. Giotto, after 800 years, still startles. As for photography, I don't think there has been enough time for us to know whether any of it will survive as "art." I have my doubts. *>UncaMikey __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
