Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre
*sigh*
You're completely missing the point. There is NO set definition of what a thing IS. It can be used AS something, or it can MEAN something given the correct framework, but its not set in stone what that thing means. There CAN be generally agreed upon meanings to an item, but the capability is always there for us to decide 'actually no, thats not what it is at all, its [x]'
Meaning is contextual. I suggest you read up on semiotics. At the moment all I'm doing is repeating myself because you clearly aren't understanding my point.
|
You're really dipping into existentialism here though, it's not like these are abstract ideas that need qualifying with some sort of philosophical justification.
Marcel Duchamp's material has little relevance to your argument; he was challenging the pre-existing traditional definition of "art", not of some simple concrete object like a musical instrument.