26 Aug '07 02:48>
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou have simply chosen what points in my argument to answer with your claims, instead of taking it on as a whole.
Sorry, but based on your post, it's pretty evident that you've yet to develop an understanding of "art".
for starters:
- one can understand art well enough to judge who's "better", just as one can with any other discipline.
- not everyone who picks up clarinet or uses markers is making art.
- not all "originality" is worthy of praise.
- ...[text shortened]... developed.
- the trained "eye" can most certainly pick out "blunders" in art.
Your first statement does not answer my question from the statement you chose to answer from, I'll leave it to you to read my post more carefully.
Second, so a young child who plays, say, chopsticks on the piano is not art simply because he's not a professional? Then what's the dividing line between who CAN make art and who "can't"? I think a lot of people would disagree with you there.
True not all originality is worthy or praise, but no originality in true art can be criticized either, it is only a matter of the creator's own tastes. Meanwhile, originality in chess can be refuted.
You fourth statement. Being able to enjoy music, for instance, is natural, or else music wouldn't have been invented in the first place.
Finally, I don't think a realist painter can go up to a abstract painter and tell him his art is "full of blunders" just because it doesn't resemble anything in the real world, so there are no "blunders" in art. Meanwhile, blundering into a mate in two (which I did today by the way, and my opponent failed to see it), is a definite mistake in chess.