Drunken Idaho wrote:
Redstar wrote:I said it wasn't.
I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.
Then the question is really about what one considers to be art. For instance, there are many who feel that art doesn't have to have a message, but instead can leave a distinct and purposeful impression. That impression can be emotional or physical or whatever. It doesn't have to be saying anything about
A good example would be my taste in music... Some people think that lyrics are paramount, whereas I think the real poetry lies in the ability to evoke a specific emotion (or series of emotions) using nothing but tonal manipulation.
The specific question was "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."
So it wasn't generalizing all abstract art, just abstract art that doesn't represent anything.
And DI, that's what I said. A "distinct and purposeful impression" which is emotional, physical, or "whatever", is a message
. I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.