Second Question on Weitz

If there was true openness in art, would anyone really try to be different? Would there be any more great revolutions in art? And for that matter, is there already openness in art today? Judging by the contemporary art world, this may be so.


In a way, I feel like there is already "true openness" in art.  In today's day and age, many people stress the idea of individualism and that everyone's opinion is valid.  Therefore, it is concluded that really no one is wrong, and in that case no one definition of art is correct (if we can even say that there is a leading definition of art today).  Especially in the world of contemporary art, people are constantly experimenting with different types of art and ways to be creative.  Because of this idea of individualism, people have gone and tried many different ways to express themselves and the idea of them being an individual.  We have had many different concepts and ideas of art because of this notion, therefore, we can see that a lack of a leading definition of art has, arguably, sprung many "revolutions" of art by itself.  Granted, there are still those who try to make a definition of art and make if public, but ultimately people will constantly choose whether or not to subscribe to that belief.  People are going to believe what they will, and really, no one can change that.  So, in that respect, yes, there is already an openness in art and people are always trying to be different.