Bob Talbot <BobTalbot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> In a philosophical or artistic sense, I'm sure it would be >> *different*, since it wouldn't have the same sort of ubiquitous >> photographic images to play off of, but artists work in any medium >> that's around and strikes their fancy, > Is art, by it's very nature, elitist? > > Once you call yourself "an artist" are you not in a way claiming to be > "better" than mere camera users? A difficult and complex question; which I vaguely remember having heard before sometime in my life :-). *Old* stuff that we keep around because a bunch of people like it is elitist art in a very useful sense -- it's the small proportion of the creation of thousands of years that has been valued enough to survive this long and still be looked at. That's the "good" sense of elitist there. People who claim to be creating stuff worthy to stand in that company are making a rather strong claim; and perhaps you could say that's "elitist". Depends what you mean by elitist, really. I hear it primarily as a term used to put down people who care about quality. (Oops, have I let my personal opinion leak out?) > A few days ago there was a discussion (short) about accessibility of > art ... > > I guess that's why I don't call myself an artist - to claim > superiority over those that do <BG> Yeah, once the one-up-manship battles really get going, the whole terminological neighborhood gets polluted and it's really better just to move along. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
