Personally I’m all in favor of defining art extremely liberally and to then have a meaningful discussion about how worthwhile or interesting something is, without arguing about something as stupid as what is art and what is not.
In the end this is what it is and can stand for itself, whether anyone considers it art or not. Of course, this classification is potentially useful for putting it in a historical context (Did anyone else do something similar in the past? How does this fit in the historical context? What, if anything, is this alluding to?), but not much beyond that – and art is such a broad term, so that classification isn’t even specific enough.
Sadly “art” is commonly used as a seal of approval. By calling something “art” it is implied that it is worthwhile and interesting only by virtue of being “art”. So this word does double duty as endorsement and classification – and since obviously no one can agree on what art is worthwhile and interesting and what not it’s all terribly confusing and inconsistent. It’s a mess. The discussion about art then clouds and confuses the actually interesting discussion about what is worthwhile and interesting art.
It should be obvious that finding a definition of art that includes only worthwhile and interesting things (even if not universally but only for one personally) is a hopeless task and should better not be attempted. So why not look at individual pieces of art and have that discussion?
It's amazing to me to see the evolution of art and how so much of it has morphed into self-mockery.
I've seen enough things both wonderful and banal that I've adopted the rule that if something's only virtue is that it's "art," it's not worth my time.
Personally I’m all in favor of defining art extremely liberally and to then have a meaningful discussion about how worthwhile or interesting something is, without arguing about something as stupid as what is art and what is not.
In the end this is what it is and can stand for itself, whether anyone considers it art or not. Of course, this classification is potentially useful for putting it in a historical context (Did anyone else do something similar in the past? How does this fit in the historical context? What, if anything, is this alluding to?), but not much beyond that – and art is such a broad term, so that classification isn’t even specific enough.
Sadly “art” is commonly used as a seal of approval. By calling something “art” it is implied that it is worthwhile and interesting only by virtue of being “art”. So this word does double duty as endorsement and classification – and since obviously no one can agree on what art is worthwhile and interesting and what not it’s all terribly confusing and inconsistent. It’s a mess. The discussion about art then clouds and confuses the actually interesting discussion about what is worthwhile and interesting art.
It should be obvious that finding a definition of art that includes only worthwhile and interesting things (even if not universally but only for one personally) is a hopeless task and should better not be attempted. So why not look at individual pieces of art and have that discussion?