If you say it's a frame and you use it to affix the "art" to the wall or
other display venue, well, I'll take your word for it and agree it's art -
for social harmony's sake. Still, no small number of folks will probably
think that even you don't really think it's art if you treat it in such a
cavalier manner.
Hell, if you want to get three nails, grab your cat and nail that pussy to
crossed sticks of wood (frame) and hang that mess on the wall, well then
fine. If you say it's art, I agree. I'll even give you that the blood
dripping down the wall and onto the floor is art if you demand that it is.
Is that ok with you?
The point is, nobody agrees on what is or can be art and what isn't or can
never be art. No two people ever will be in complete accord on the question.
Just for the hell of it, I picked my new criteria. It allows everything. All
it requests of the "artist" is that he provide some visible effort
associated with his "work" that says, "I consider this to be 'art', and to
prove it's worthy of being called 'art' I've separated it from 'non art' to
aid in your viewing 'pleasure'."
Regards,
Bob...
------------------------------------------------
"A picture is worth a thousand words,
but it uses up three thousand times the memory."
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 26 May 2005 at 19:31, Bob Blakely wrote:
Har!
If you can acquire a piece of (perhaps colored?) cardboard larger than
the photo
and some buy or make some kindergarten paper, you have a frame. Cost
equals
much, much less than the photo which (apparently) was afforded!
Are prints with borders art?
