Meaning has something to do with interaction. In a way, a painter back in the Middle Ages communicated something, and we interact with what reached us, but we cannot interact with him in person.
There is some delusions, yes, I think, in what concerns the "living artist". Is there such a thing as a living artist, is a question I make myself ... In my opinion, art isn't exactly a job ... Although there are people who are artists for profession, and I don't question this at all! If a man grew up in a family where 5 people in 10 were musicians, or painters, and he found out that he liked to do that too, and does it well, it's an artist, and there's nothing to question about it. But there is the kind of man who's trying to communicate with the world, too, like to open the eyes of everyone around.
And there are the artists who will die thinking they're only designers. I don't know if Hans Beck considers himself an artist. (We should ask him!
)
Also, many things we call art are simply some sort of craft. Painting, for example, in the day of Da Vinci had use and reason, and the painter was doing something needed to a certain purpose. I think that until photography it was like this, in what concerns painting. And there was the doing for need, and the pleasure on doing something according to the thought of the painter, in his spare time ...
(As well as the cunning of the painter. We seem to be able to realize when some sort of ambiguity was intended, even if we can't say for sure what has been the intention of the ambiguous parts. People try to read a lot of things in the work of Leonardo Da Vinci (I read him in a simple way, but I admit that people who search for ghosts will find many in Da Vinci, because he is visibly full of many hidden intentions -- which, to me, died with him, and I don't care!). On the other hand, there's art work with little and/or no ambiguity as well. Rembrandt, for example, is, in my view, very simple as painter.)
My photography isn't art, I think. But, even if it was ... enough to be considered so, I wouldn't, because there isn't a function for it ... It's mere fun. Art has reason, cause, compromise with an idea (even if the idea is the lack of ideas, or to defend that you shouldn't be compromised to any ideas). Either to decorate a church, to portrait a King, or an Earl, or his daughter, or to say that the world is wrong.
There's many things we consider art that were much like my essays ... Say, maybe, theatre. Some plays by the Roman Titus Plautus are mere entertainment. Just like my klicky stories. Maybe they'll be considered art, within a thousand years
If they do, I won't know however.
Meaning is one thing, art is another. Meaning has more to do, I think, with contemporary art.
(My
on it ...)
Now: "Can someone mean with Playmobil?" Certainly someone can!!! I mean groans & giggles!
Maybe someone can find deeper meanings ... Maybe I will, in the future, when I have more playmobil ... (I think that many klicky, a klicky war, may be very interesting to show some interesting things about humanity ... Only, the guys with big armies don't usually put children in the towns that are being invaded by enemy troops, and this is an interesting message ... (Not the only one, but a simple basic beginning
aye,
Richard?)) (However, I'll never have an army with 500 soldiers ...) (I'm talking about
this, &
attachment.)
As for "What is meaning?" ... I already got
here.
& What's understanding, Tim? The matter of the "answering computer" has to do with understanding too, I think.
G.
