RE: ART vs. DRAMA

["Nelson Zagalo" <ntz@ca.ua.pt>]

Brandon said:
>>>though they hang in the museum and art historians do call them such.


You're correct Art HISTORIANS call them art. The examples you talk about
are part of our art and cultural history and they are not studied for
the objects they were but for the cultural implications that surrounds
them.

Random-art is really not very different from Dada in terms of technical
point, however very different in ideological goals. However what's your
point in rescuing Dada?!! Dada was a cultural breaking art movement that
appeared in a certain time, nothing else. The funny thing is that
Dadaists wouldn't call their artefacts as Art, they were looking for the
opposite of everything art should represent.

The problem with defining Art, is that it's so intrinsic human that it's
hardly if possible definable. The definition I normally use for art
stands as something like this: 

"Something created intentionally, being able to communicate anything
that will elicit a cognitive and emotional change in the receiver."  


By the way, what's difference between Visual Arts or Drama in terms of
Art concept???

nelson