Is art dead? Looks like it is in the minds of the Weblog Awards. Purposely not linked.
Here is what I wrote in the forum section at the Weblog Awards:
Congratulations on the Weblog awards for 2007. It is a shame that my blogs, and the blogs of countless others in my blog community, will not be eligible. Of course, we are talking about the art blogs.This cause is not about me or my friends getting another award. It goes to the perception of art in civilization. Many simply don't see it on their radar screen even in an abstract sense. I have come off snotty, probably, which isn't helping the cause of art in general. Maybe some of you gentle readers can add to my thread at the forum, or even better, add a few threads. Registration required, but painless. Act now, since the nominations have been opened.
No, not photo blogs! Please, for the love of all that is decent good in this world, we are trying to have a civilization here!
Notice that I stopped short of declaring the blog awards "uncultured"!
Never mind. I can see that art is, as the critics have claimed, dead.
Now that I have, hopefully, made you feel silly, let's get busy and include this category in your awards. By the way, I will inform you (and this is painfully necessary) that "art" is not photography, but does include fine art photography, and is separate from the category of "culture". However, it goes without citation, that culture's greatest asset has been art - at least for a couple of millenia.
Back to the art category: Wikipedia has correctly suggested art as having two broad categories: "Visual Art" and "Arts".
Thanks for your attention to this, Weblog Awards.
BTW, I "cap off" on photography because the category of photography is included, but art has no mention whatsoever that I could find.