How does Dickie’s core with the core affect his argument?
Again it leaves open this huge whole in the argument that allows for the absorption of all things into the artworld. There is no real line between what is and is not art. There is no concrete definition and I don't believe that to be the case. That is simply ridiculous. Clearly there needs to be some kind of border that art should and should not be able to cross, otherwise we lose the essence of what makes art important, its ability to represent unique emotional expression. The overly general view of the argument is far too broad to accept
No comments:
Post a Comment