Quote:
Originally Posted by Cwocwoc
Art is not about craftsmanship or draughtsmanship at all. Many modern artists don't physically produce their art they get others to do it for them. Art is about expressing ideas and visions. That's where the value of it lies.
Going back to your earlier post that is why no value Should be attached to random splodges on canvas unless randomness as a concept is part of the intention of the vision being put forward by the artist.
I am not understanding your statement here ... granted this is a bit far from my the intention of my OP -
As a side bar, I am little out of the loop and just wanted to see if anyone had ideas about William James, I'm sure most recognized it. James was concerned about the lack of academic study of religion and felt "Religious Experience" was worth studying. Its turn of the century, so I'm sure it has been picked apart - and if there was some major flaw, someone here would say something. Yes, I was using RGT as some litmus test, dangerous? ...
Returning to Cw's statement, you say that art is not about the skill of the craft, but that it is about the transmission of "ideas." In that line of thought:
1. Is some minimal skill of the craft necessarily involved in being able to transmit those ideas in some artistic form?
2. If the artist intends to convey some concept in a painting, but I get something totally different out of the painting - does my value proposition of the painting become meaningless?