We don't need art, we don't think in concepts and our view of ourselves is not defined by art at all.
Art doesn't condition our consciousness to see the world in any particular way, its not the sum of our deepest philosophical values at all, its far deeper than that shallow and blinkered vision.
But then its very easy to say what art isn't, but who can say what it is?
From a human perspective all artists are quite mad in one way or another, sanity doesn't enter into it at all.
If philosophy and philosophers are sane then I am Marie of Romania.
We don't need art, we don't think in concepts and our view of ourselves is not defined by art at all.
Art doesn't condition our consciousness to see the world in any particular way, its not the sum of our deepest philosophical values at all, its far deeper than that shallow and blinkered vision.
But then its very easy to say what art isn't, but who can say what it is? From a human perspective all artists are quite mad in one way or another, sanity doesn't enter into it at all.
If philosophy and philosophers are sane then I am Marie of Romania.
maybe you should try reading the work of the person you're criticisiing first... this didn't really land
Art is beautification. Men have always moved to art when the immediate concerns of the day are met.
This influence can be clearly.seen in music, language, instruments, buildings, etc.
Your last sentence is a non Sequitur and has no bearing on the subject.