>Whatever the intention of the creator of a piece, the viewer must have a say as to whether a piece is art or not. If a piece is not art, how can its creator be an artist? And why can't art be produced by a non-artist?
>I'm really confused now... >cheers, frank IMHO, it is art is if the creator thinks it is art. That does not mean, however, than anyone else in the world is going to agree with them. But to me that lack of agreement then falls into the realm of having a discussion of whether it is "good" or "bad" art. And that is a purely subjective thing. Great art is different -- it is a consensus -- a lot of people, usually over a time, have agreed it is good art. I.E. It has achieved a form of universality -- it appeals to a lot of people. Art is so subjective that discussion about what it is, whether it is good, etc. are sort of pointless. And I think that is the whole point. Marnie aka Doe
