• LoulouA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    We sure do not have the same definition of art!

    Art does not, in my opinion, need an observer to be art.

    If you think the sky is beautiful then that does not make it art, or everything would be art so nothing would be art.

      • LoulouA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That everything is art ? Or that everything can be art?

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        If everything is art, AI art is art, and that’s obviously a disgusting communist lie. Where’s the line?

    • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I like to think that anything that CAN be art, if it can be meaningful for someone.

      A pebble might be ignored by most people, but a geologist might be fascinated by it, I think that becomes art.

      Even in something worked-on at the very least the artist is the observer, and they will put into it the meaning they perceive in it, and if they never share with anyone it’s still art.

      My opinion.

      • LoulouA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Every opinion is valid when it comes to art!

        Personally I just think the creative process is a part of it so I don’t see randomness being art.

        That doesn’t mean it’s not beautiful! Beauty can be found everywhere and definitely is in the eye of the observer… IMO!