> What irritates me is that they're passing this off as art. It used to be that art was, by nature, beautiful (which does depend on how you perceive it, but perception is still based on fundamental principles involving all sorts of math and things that I don't have a clue about--this was in the Reader's Digest--I'll get to the point now). Its very definition involved beauty. Now, it seems, nothing qualifies as art unless it "makes a statement". Well, okay. Make your statement, but don't call it art.

I have the feeling that the world of art is full of people shouting at each other that what they're doing isn't art. This seems to be because art as a concept is so elusive of any concrete definition. One man's art is another man's sack of dirty rags. (For that matter, it's not too far off to imagine someone calling a sack of dirty rags a work of art.)

The point is that art is something that means something profound to its creator. From there, it is up to everyone else to either appreciate it or dismiss it, on an individual basis. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, and sometimes a work of art just doesn't stand up in someone's eyes.

The thing to remember is that just because a work of art is not something you appreciate, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be called art. Art is a creative endeavour; I can't make any more precise of a definition than that. Even if it's the most horrid piece of garbage you've ever seen, it's someone else's creation, and to them, it is art.

There are ways to appreciate art without liking it.