art dominates must we dominate it ?
i meant to propose something such as a painting and deny it is not is contrary to art.As usual, I have no idea what you are saying, or trying to say.
not reality? we are submerged surrounded by reality there is no escape everything we do say and create is as a consequence of our realtyMagritte's point is that art is art, it is not reality.
a picture may not be palpable but it is credible,
the act of seeing something means we recognise/identify what it is/what we see and therefore it is real.
the maker is also real.
you can show it being smoked. there is a chain of event, things are not separate entities they are part of a bigger picture. they serve a purpose hence their creation.You cannot grab the image of a pipe and smoke it.
I believe words are changeable and so should art.You cannot kill Odysseus and marry Penelope - they only exist as words on paper
I don't understand the[and perhaps as images in film adaptations...]. No matter how 'realistically' a work of art is painted or written, it is not real in the sense that they exist in the actual world as anything more than the works of art.
''it is not real''..
if i am able to depict it to the original form then is it not that real ?
I feel the basis of art is a real part.
however
the example of babies with wings is an adaption of two very different form put together to create the illusion of flight.
it is not real in this case because it is entirely based on a idea or ideology that is not true to life.
i cant see an alien then
it cannot be real.