I've noticed that a lot of the time in class, we tend to use the terms "art" and "painting" interchangeably, as in "If that painting is used as a rug, is it still a painting?" Sorry if I'm being too picky here, but I just wanted to define painting as being separate from art. A painting is an image set down on some surface in paint that is presumably intended to be art; it is not necessarily art. So the aforementioned example sentence might read, "If that painting is used as a rug, can it still be art?"
It occurs to me now, though, that the example sentence I chose is not the best. Goodman places high emphasis on identifying things by their function, and if a painting is spread on the floor for people to walk on at their discretion, perhaps he doesn't care whether or not it is an image set down on some surface in paint. Perhaps the materials used to make it are irrelevent compared with its new function, and he would stop calling it a painting and start calling it a rug.
Have I written in a circle here? Maybe. I still want to stay away from assuming that painting = art.
But what do you think? Do you think that the function of an object outweighs not only the preconceived notions attached to that object, but also the materials that make up that object?
No comments:
Post a Comment