> Well, no, it definitely isn't. All voices are artificial -- if
> they're art at all. Art is artifice, a made thing, an artificed
> thing, an artificial thing. The very notion that a poem can "be
> natural" is absurd. The best you can do is to create the illusion
> of naturalness by artificial means -- by picking this word instead
> of that, this phrase instead of that, this tone or manner or mode
> or style instead of that.
On 1 Apr 2004 at 17:20, Christina Fletcher wrote:
> Well, yes and no, Marcus. The definition of art as
> artificial/artiface might just be artificial in itself. I wonder
> about this when I listen to Mozart. bw c
Of course the definition of art is artificial; any definition is
artificial, by definition! It's not natural to make art, it's
civilized, and it's artificial -- it's a made thing as opposed to a
found thing. Not every made thing is art, but all art has to be made,
not found. We don't say that the cliffs of Dover are art, nor the
Grand Canyon, for example -- well, there might be some religious
folks who say that God is the Artist and so they are art after all.
Is that what you're trying to say?
|