Another response to Sean...

In Sean's most recent blog, he asks "Do you agree with Goodman that something could be art at one time and not another?"

Like Sean, "I agree...that something can be a work of art at one time and not at another"; when it comes to Sean's example (as well as one we raised in class) of Duchamp's Fountain, however, I still don't see the urinal as a work of art, even if it is placed in a museum by a so-called 'artist.' By simply painting some initials on an actual (I presume used) urinal and placing it in a museum, people saw this as an innovative and daring work of art; but to me, it just seems to degrade artwork that people put actual thought and effort into, from artists who have innate talent or have studied and practice art for years. I think even Duchamp uked the creation as this 'work of art' as a test to society--whether they simply accept something as art if its placed in a gallery or museum (which, to Goodman, it would be this that makes the urinal art), or if they actually take the time to question 'what' makes something art.

 

WHICH OF THIS IS REALLY ART?  OR ARE THEY ALL ART? IF SO, ARE THEY ALL OF EQUAL QUALITY/SIGNIFICANCE IN THE ART WORLD?

Yes, it is true that oftentimes when it comes to paintings, sculpture, etc. having it put in a museum or gallery makes it into received as art; but just because a painting never makes it out of the artists workshop or because a dance never makes it onto the stage and out of the studio, it doesn't mean its not art...or does it?