- NEW!
by Millenium - The Mysterious M. . . GONE! on September 5th, 2009
I agree! What is pleasing to ONE person is NOT always pleasing to another! That's what makes the world go 'round!
by Pecks bad boy on September 5th, 2009
I do agree. Pretty has little to do with it. However it is not exclusive of pretty too. Things can be pretty and be art. Pretty is not a requirement.
by Marguerite on September 5th, 2009
If it is pretty to someone, it would have to have affected someone. Either way, art can be beautiful or not but it must affect someone, except perhaps Duchamp. He said he didn't want to do art that he liked or didn't like. But then Duchamp is in a category all his own!
by N I C K on September 4th, 2009
I sort of agree. I think we react to the highest art with our emotions. Pure aesthetics can make you feel really good too though. Hmmm... I really don't know. It's better if we don't fully understand it
Is it against the law for being commissioned drawn artwork, like fan art, someone's character, or even scenery on paper or digital paper?
by IshiGray on October 4th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What do you think of art exhibits that use actual human bodies to convey something?
by Michelle on October 13th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What are your two favorite colors? Mine are pink and purple.
by greyowl on September 1st, 2011
| 7 people like this
DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO CONTACT THE BRITISH WRITER MIKE RIPLEY ?
by vyver on August 2nd, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Should controversial art be prohibited from public display?
by Michelle on August 31st, 2011
| 4 people like this
You're reading Art is art when it affects the viewer /listener not becouse it is pretty-do you agree
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
LOL :)
by griffin on September 5th, 2009