I chose the picture of this rock just for you.
Ah, now here's a gentle thought experiment. After a few weeks mired in posts on justice and suicide bombs, it'll be great to spend some time thinking about art and aesthetics.
---------------------------------------------------
Daphne Stone could not decide what to do with her favourite exhibit. As curator of the art gallery, she had always adored an untitled piece by Henry Moore, only posthumously discovered. She admired the combination of its sensuous contours and geometric balance, which together captured the mathematical and spiritual aspects of nature.
At least, that's what she thought up until last week, when it was revealed that it wasn't a Moore at all. Worse, it wasn't shaped by human hand but by wind and rain. Moore had bought the stone to work on, only to conclude that he couldn't improve on nature. But when it was found, everyone assumed that Moore must have carved it.
Stone was stunned by the discovery and her immediate reaction was to remove the 'work' from display. But then she realised that this revelation had not changed the stone itself, which still had the qualities she had admired. Why should her new knowledge of how the stone came to be change her opinion of what it is now, in itself?
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 109.
---------------------------------------------------
So what do you think? Has this work of art changed? For the better or worse? And is it still art? I'll be back on Friday to have my say.
---------------------------------------------------
Daphne Stone could not decide what to do with her favourite exhibit. As curator of the art gallery, she had always adored an untitled piece by Henry Moore, only posthumously discovered. She admired the combination of its sensuous contours and geometric balance, which together captured the mathematical and spiritual aspects of nature.
At least, that's what she thought up until last week, when it was revealed that it wasn't a Moore at all. Worse, it wasn't shaped by human hand but by wind and rain. Moore had bought the stone to work on, only to conclude that he couldn't improve on nature. But when it was found, everyone assumed that Moore must have carved it.
Stone was stunned by the discovery and her immediate reaction was to remove the 'work' from display. But then she realised that this revelation had not changed the stone itself, which still had the qualities she had admired. Why should her new knowledge of how the stone came to be change her opinion of what it is now, in itself?
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 109.
---------------------------------------------------
So what do you think? Has this work of art changed? For the better or worse? And is it still art? I'll be back on Friday to have my say.
RSS Feed
