we are all artists.
Out of context: Reply #21
- Started
- Last post
- 25 Responses
- cherub1
@colin_s: I think you may be confusing abilities with art, and human potential in general with art. The word "art" being used here to mean both the ability to create it and the created thing itself, the artwork. And speaking of artwork, that's why generic, non-art related abilities for example, cannot be considered artistic on their own - they do not manifest as a creation of art. Being "supportive" as you say, is not art. As an abstract characteristic, it is not an artwork. If you cause it to take a form by incorporating it into an artwork of some sort sure, but "supportive" on its own, I do not believe that qualifies as art.
The whole spectrum of human abilities and potential encompasses much, much more than artistic ability/potential alone. Robotron3k said you confused art with ambition. I'd say I agree. Your thesis is correct(and I love it). But it has nothing to do with art. A big part of art is visually(or auditorially) communicating something to the viewer, that's more or less meant to be either enjoyed because of its aesthetic beauty, or admired for whatever expressive elements the artist embedded within it. I don't think Michael Jordan playing basketball fulfills that criteria, so I don't accept that as art. It's just a skill. The final product is called a basketball game.
My English professor used to say you can never be too specific in your thesis. The tendency is to be too broad. Here you are being too broad. Narrow it down to just art if that's what you really want to explore.