This is what I attempted to answer in the TA's question this week. I think for almost all cases of what we call art, it has to be human made. But, occasionally, non-artifacts can be called art. I think this is because we appreciate certain non-artifacts in ways that we don't appreciate others. Like I discussed in my TA response, gems are one of these things. Diamonds specifically have a very certain way of being evaluated. Diamonds are prized for their clarity, their cut, color, and karat. I find it interesting that diamonds can be grown in factories by the help of man. But often, natural diamonds are preferred over the man-made ones. I guess in a way, there can be artifact diamonds (man-made) and non-artifact diamonds (natural.) I think the way we hold diamonds can make them art themselves. The cut can make them more attractive pieces, too.
I do not think we can always suspend the idea that art must be man-made, but occasionally, or even just very rarely, we will be willing to set it aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment