Logical Correlation | Observed phenomena Truth of appearance Symbolic significance |
R
epetition of meaning, true in every possible interpretation, art is the explanation for art.
Trying to classify function depends on context. For conceptual artists, the primary function of art is to question the nature of art. In this line of reasoning, aesthetic considerations are considered extraneous to an object's function, and are nothing more than distracting arbitrary taste adornments. A taste adornment is simply a personal preference or liking, perhaps produced through social conditioning.
Is it feasible to question the essential nature of visual art by claiming it is independent from appearance? If this were true, then logically there would be no need to look at the art to receive its meaning. It seems rather self-evident that at that point the exercise is no longer visual.
“The one thing to say about art is that it is one thing. Art is art-as-art and everything else is everything else. Art as art is nothing but art. Art is not what is not art.” - Ad Reinhardt
