Hey guys, Ebert's right.
Understand that despite being a mediocre, unproductive artist (I guess now I've devolved into an "appreciator of the arts," the saddest type), most serious discussion on that subject of subjectiveness first makes my eyes roll. Then, it bursts the blood vessels controlling the pressure behind them, inflating them to ridiculous proportions. I call
( Read more... )
#1., #1a.
"...he's not willing to entertain the idea of art being anything but his definition, which I take as being insincere to art itself."
Valid point, but most of us are unwilling to give any concrete definition. When we can provide a definition, it often isn't something we can all agree upon. I suppose, like you've said, this is the nature of art, but it makes the word goddamn useless if it represents anything human-made. Some people will argue even that isn't a qualifier anymore. It makes any discussion on the topic a worthless endeavor. Ebert's definition is limiting, but it also adds meaning to an otherwise empty word. Art is the ethereal, uni-directional conduit between creator and viewer (or listener, or audience, or whatever human sensory receptor). If that conduit allows bi-directional travel via viewer interaction, then the nature of the source creation changes. Ebert thinks this change makes the source not-art. I'll be willing to settle for it making the source creation less-art.
"Also, he tweets way too damn much.
Dude, really? If you tweet at all, it's too damn much. I say this as a fellow Twitter user.
Reply
Leave a comment