Friday, December 3, 2010

art: not the dallas cowboys.

Art. What is it? What is art? Art is what? What can qualify as art? What has characteristics attributed to art? What are the characteristics attributed to art? What are things that are art-like? What are art-like things? What makes these things art-like? How can one distinguish something that is art from something that is not art? What things indicate that something is art, as compared to things that indicate something is not art? What must one learn to look for in order to determine if something is art? What must someone learn to look for to determine if something is not art? Is art things that are cool? Is art things that are lame? Is art definable? How does one determine if art is definable? Is this blog total bs? Will I get a bad grade on this? Probably not. But to answer the previously posed questions, I have no idea. I don’t take art classes. Why is this you may ask? Because I don’t care about art. I find it to be a particularly dry subject, and hence one I do not excel in. How then, can I possibly write a blog on what art is? Well if you ask me (not that you did) I would say I’m doing a pretty good job. I would consider Michael Vick art. This is mainly due to the fact that he accounted for three touchdowns yesterday against the Houston Texans. Also, I started him on my fantasy team, which makes me happy. 28 points later, it would appear as though I have quite the edge on my competition. I trust that Michael will continue to be a playmaker for my fantasy team as I enter the playoffs. This fact also makes me quite happy. I think that’s what art is, stuff that makes you happy.

No comments:

Post a Comment