Once upon a time “art” was synonymous with “craft” “ability” “skill” even “science ” in some contexts.
So any creation can be called art and the act of creating as well as the skills involved in that creation can be called art. With that broad a definition an audience is not required as the art exists for its own sake.
I mean if someone painted a masterpiece in the depths of a forest and there was noone to see it, would it still be art? Or are we at some kind of quantum art thing where art/not-art depends on an observer like the nature of light?
Better get KimLuster in here to explain.
@bravo. Ah, yes. The thing is I have picked up on the concept. So, I welcome any one's thoughts, but I don't need an explanation
. It just happens that I don't agree
. My environs are not “once upon a time.”
And as far as existence, empirical science requires proof that can be repeated, which minimally begs for witnesses. I don't require a witness for some thing to exist. (Side note: Our heritage sets these questions “in the woods,” but I wonder: would the answer be different if it were set “in a galaxy far away”?)
However, as to my construct of art, not only is a witness mandatory, but a witness who somehow relates to the piece is required.
You disagree. Fine. Your preferences differ from mine (although I am a fan of Puccini). I actually like that we differ because then we need not compete to obtain what we like.
@ozone. “ART—from the perspective of Message and Messenger” resolves it beautifully if messenger is not the creator, but rather the performer (who may or may not be the creator),