It interested me that Gowans said Art among other things can only be defined by its function. In previous chapters we discussed that everything can be defined in terms of its opposites or what it is not. Isn't this still true? In addition, what can't be defined by its function? I feel like most if not all things can be defined by their function as well as what they are not (or do not do I suppose).
So one function of art is to provide an image for something so we can reference it in the future. Art could also be used to vividly tell stories. Art can persuade people too. Lastly, art is beautiful and pleases the eye.
I feel like if we can define what art does we can define what art is. This doesn't seem like much of a Gordian knot after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment