I was suggesting that the tree is beauty. But not art. (Ignore that a human made an image of it ) Is it’s beauty enough to call it art. I don’t think so…assuming you also find it beautiful in some way. I won’t assume you do, necessarily.
That it can only be experienced in the instant of existence could perhaps be said of art? Regardless of its perceived beauty. You experience art as the audience, in that moment you are confronted by it. Its continued existence afterwards, elsewhere, has no further meaning for the ‘art’ you experienced- ergo it can only be in the here and now (Which is why prints are largely without value…maybe…?)
Beauty isn’t something I seek to coin. I’ve done something wrong if that‘s what I’ve done
That it can only be experienced in the instant of existence could perhaps be said of art? Regardless of its perceived beauty. You experience art as the audience, in that moment you are confronted by it. Its continued existence afterwards, elsewhere, has no further meaning for the ‘art’ you experienced- ergo it can only be in the here and now (Which is why prints are largely without value…maybe…?)
Beauty isn’t something I seek to coin. I’ve done something wrong if that‘s what I’ve done