Re: OT: Musical languistics

Christophe Grandsire wrote:

>   And I said to Jan: "Nice
> museum, but the cleansing department could have at least taken back their
> things!".

Cleaning department.

>  I replied that if a single person,
> who is otherwise very artistically inclined as myself and certainly not a
> classicist, fails to recognise that a piece is a work of art - and not
> just
> not like it, no, really not see it was meant to be art at all! -, then
> it's
> not a piece of art). You needn't put a big "ART" on things so that they
> really become art, but art can't just be in your head, as you said very
> well. Art has to "speak", if only to say "Hi! I'm art". It doesn't mean I
> have to like it. But if I just fail to recognise something as a piece of
> art, then I can safely say that it's not art. It's not just a matter of
> opinion here.

I would have to agree with you. In the National Gallery of Victoria -
Australia[1] they have hanging a mirror in a very basic frame. There is
nothing special about it. I'm not sure that it's art either... (I don't
like it, or a lot of stuff in the NGVA, but I'm rather fussy. But I
certainly acknowledged that most other stuff in their was art.)

[1]: The National Gallery of Victoria that is dedicated to Australian
art, as opposed to international stuff (NGV - International). The name
dates back to before Federation when Victoria was a colony rather than a
state. The National Gallery of Australia is a totally different place.
The National Gallery of Victoria, Australia is ambiguous.

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

Replies