User:Andrew Trostle

This is a response to what Kathleen said about the art critics, Bell and Fry. When I read that they defined art as something that provokes an emotion through its use of form, therefore disqualifying realistic art, I thought that was absolutely ridiculous. For all of western history, there has never been a single definition of art that has persisted. It seems the understanding of art is in more dire straits than the meaning of text, especially because of its subjective nature. Whatever art is, it is something subjective, and for any critic or anyone to come along and say "I'm sorry, that realistic painting isn't art," is preposterous if not utterly egotistical. Though, I do think this ties into our discussion on the meaning of text since we've been discussing so much about whether art is text or not. My main contention with this debate is that we're dealing with two empty signifiers. I don't know how the statement - art is text; text is art - can mean anything when neither text nor art are defined. I know we're trying to figure out what "text" means but to discuss that within the realm of something else that has no definitive meaning (i.e. art) seem to be counter productive. --Andrew Trostle 02:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)