4th of Fall, 513 AV (Towards evening)
Perhaps this was not the correct decision.
But, in an act so irrational that it sent Arcturus reeling, he had made it.
He was visiting an old friend. A rather old friend, considering that it had been the better part of a century after they had last met. Then again, perhaps he was over-thinking this; perhaps his friend had... mellowed with time.
He hoped so. He was currently sitting at a couch inside his friend's tastefully decorated rooms, staring at an impressive sculture that must have cost a lot. It was rather peculiar in nature, consisting of sixteen different colours put together on a plain stone figure of a human covered in eyes. The small metal plate at its base stated its name to be "This Work of Art is not Art". Curious.
"So tell me then, is this art?" Arcturus began muttering, partly to himself and partly to the sculpture. "If this is, then its name is incorrect with reference to the former part. So if it isn't, then its name is correct insofar as we only consider the latter part, and replace "Work of Art" with "this object". But that's not all, isn't it? The nature of that statement is paradoxical. So considering the duality of not-Art and Art, an object must either be Art or not-Art. There is no in-between, no transition state. But perhaps an object could be approaching the state of Art? No, that's a different thing. It isn't Art until it is Art; until then, it is not-Art."
Arcturus frowned, beginning to ponder the exact meaning of what Art really was. He did not hope to answer such a seemingly simple, yet astonishingly difficult, question.
"Let's start from the beginning. What is Art? What makes an object Art? Are there properties associated with Art objects? Let's say there are. There's harmony, there's beauty, there's ugliness, there's dissonance. One has to perceive them in order to actually know something is Art. Oh, and a lot of Art objects I have seen - paintings, mostly - make representations of real life. Flowers, Lhavit's towers, and so on. Does Art have to imitate reality then? No. The presence of such sculptures already falsify that theory. So imitating reality isn't necessary, but is it sufficient for making an object Art? Let's tentatively agree to that, and move on.
Let's say an Art object must have at least one of those aesthetic properties. Now we're getting somewhere. In fact, I think this is quite feasible. But if we consider that some people consider specimens - this, for example - as not-Art, but others consider it to be Art, who is correct? An object is either Art or not-Art."
Before he could continue, his Ethaefal friend emerged from the bathroom in an extremely flamboyant suit of purple.
Arcturus sighed.
Yes, he hasn't changed a bit.
Perhaps this was not the correct decision.
But, in an act so irrational that it sent Arcturus reeling, he had made it.
He was visiting an old friend. A rather old friend, considering that it had been the better part of a century after they had last met. Then again, perhaps he was over-thinking this; perhaps his friend had... mellowed with time.
He hoped so. He was currently sitting at a couch inside his friend's tastefully decorated rooms, staring at an impressive sculture that must have cost a lot. It was rather peculiar in nature, consisting of sixteen different colours put together on a plain stone figure of a human covered in eyes. The small metal plate at its base stated its name to be "This Work of Art is not Art". Curious.
"So tell me then, is this art?" Arcturus began muttering, partly to himself and partly to the sculpture. "If this is, then its name is incorrect with reference to the former part. So if it isn't, then its name is correct insofar as we only consider the latter part, and replace "Work of Art" with "this object". But that's not all, isn't it? The nature of that statement is paradoxical. So considering the duality of not-Art and Art, an object must either be Art or not-Art. There is no in-between, no transition state. But perhaps an object could be approaching the state of Art? No, that's a different thing. It isn't Art until it is Art; until then, it is not-Art."
Arcturus frowned, beginning to ponder the exact meaning of what Art really was. He did not hope to answer such a seemingly simple, yet astonishingly difficult, question.
"Let's start from the beginning. What is Art? What makes an object Art? Are there properties associated with Art objects? Let's say there are. There's harmony, there's beauty, there's ugliness, there's dissonance. One has to perceive them in order to actually know something is Art. Oh, and a lot of Art objects I have seen - paintings, mostly - make representations of real life. Flowers, Lhavit's towers, and so on. Does Art have to imitate reality then? No. The presence of such sculptures already falsify that theory. So imitating reality isn't necessary, but is it sufficient for making an object Art? Let's tentatively agree to that, and move on.
Let's say an Art object must have at least one of those aesthetic properties. Now we're getting somewhere. In fact, I think this is quite feasible. But if we consider that some people consider specimens - this, for example - as not-Art, but others consider it to be Art, who is correct? An object is either Art or not-Art."
Before he could continue, his Ethaefal friend emerged from the bathroom in an extremely flamboyant suit of purple.
Arcturus sighed.
Yes, he hasn't changed a bit.