Friday, 21 January 2011
Art is any function of life that is performed as it should be performed.
The subjectivity inherent in "should be" might irritate some, but they must remember that art is no more art when it is deprived of subjectivity. Everyone might have his own ethics, and that governs the functions his life which is, from an aesthetic point of view, his art. Now, even smoking, if performed properly, might be somebody's art. But what about universality? I think art's universality lies in the vastness of your subjectivity. The closer your experiences are to life, the more acceptable they are to those who live... Because definitely life is common to all of us!
Thursday, 20 January 2011
I don't find the definition of art as "an imitation of life" correct. Imitation necessitates that the imitator and the imitated be two mutually independent entities, or the imitation will be no more an imitation. Lets take an example. A deaf guy cannot imitate a deaf guy. When you eat, you cannot imitate eating, though you may imitate the eating manners of somebody else who is not you. This shows that imitation is of something which is not imitator..... Now, if we're alive, can we imitate life? Particular imitation of life is definitely possible and not only we see it in our daily life but art too abounds in it. But if imitation is only particular in nature, what about the universality art claims?