Today in class we further discussed the ideas of Weitz. Weitz's stance on there being no definition of art arouses many feelings in observers of art. For me, I feel that art is better off not being defined. The fact that there is no workable definition of art in Weitz view makes art more appealing and more mysterious. However, a question arises in my mind as to if something is created and is there; i.e. art, then how can it not have a definition? Everything in existence has to have a definition. If it cannot be defined, then it is not real. An example that was stated in class was gaming. Gaming is capable of being defined on all levels. Even the most basic of activities such as doodling on a piece of paper in class. It may not be seen as gaming, but in actuality it is. Doodling may seem extremely trivial to some, however isn't that what gaming is, trivial?
Therefore, if art is undefinable, then what are we even talking about? If there is no actual definition, then why bother discussing or observing at at all?
No comments:
Post a Comment