Re: The definition of art.

[Michael Pycraft Hughes <pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk>]

At 01:23 PM 7/31/98 -0500, mark sottilaro wrote:
>Art is human expression which has no use other than to define itself. 
>Cooking, is not considered a fine art, as it's main function is to 
>transfer
>nutrients from food, to humans.  Cooking, is a craft.  The different from 
>art
>and craft is in the purpose.  Are there aesthetics used in cooking?  Of
>course, but the use of aesthetics principals doesn't necessarily produce 
>fine
>art.  Of course you pick a pleasant color when you paint your house, but 
>the
>main reason you paint it (or aluminum side it) is to protect the wood from
the
>elements.  Painting a house is not art, but craft.  Painting a mural on a
>house is art because there is no reason to do this, other than to express 
>an
>idea or feeling.  Fine art has no other purpose other than to be itself.
>
>Oh boy, I bet that I've opened up a can of worms!

Well, this can's been open for about a century - it first came about in the
preface to Oscar Wilde's "Picture of Dorian Grey" (I think?), which ended
in the line "All art is quite useless".  As for defining art, it's about as
pointless as defining science, philosophy or religeon.

Michael

Dr Michael Pycraft Hughes, University of Glasgow, Glasgow UK G12 8QQ 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
     "What can be done with fewer assumptions is done in vain 
with more" - William of Occam (1285-1347) (now called Occam's Razor)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
   www.elec.gla.ac.uk/~pycraft             pycraft@elec.gla.ac.uk