>Neil McEwan wrote on 9/12/98 4:35 am
>> in this case, "everyone is
>>an artist, and everything they do is art". This is just the over-extension
>>of the democratic, egalitarian impulse into areas where it doesn't belong.
>One of the major thrusts in art over the last thirty years or so is to
>take exactly that position, with the modification that it is in the
>eye of the beholder. If the beholder sees beauty, truth and meaning
>in an object, then it can be said to be art.
Existentialist art? Does the 'real/legitimate' artist create something he or
she has given an inherent meaning to *before* the audience see's or hears
it? Or can a person be called an 'artist' after just producing an empty
milk-bottle after which someone, somewhere will inevitably say the said
milk-bottle is an expression of art in itself. If so, won't the terms 'art'
or 'artist' lose their currency?