> Except that that isn't what I said in the first place. I was examining . . .

Ah, got it now.

> But that's neither here nor there. My point was simply that to say that art is something one can get meaning out of is no better than to have no definition at all, simply because it's a completely subjective distinction.

The existence of an objective determination of what is art and what is not art does not necessarily imply that we, as humans, are capable of coming up with hard fast rules that we can use to make that determination. It's similar to the problem an agnostic moral absolutist has -- he believes in an absolute standard of right and wrong but not necessarily that we, as human beings, can always determine what that standard is.

This does not mean, however, that, lacking absolute perception of an absolute standard, we are totally lost. I have not presented any absolute definition of art, but I've applied some principles that help in approximating that absolute standard, and with it it is possible to determine that Beethoven's 5th, David's The Death of Socrates, and D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation are all art. Also that Cage's "Incoherent Droning" is not. But just because we can't make a definitive determination about some of the more bizarre forms of modern painting doesn't mean we have to throw it all out and start from scratch.

All the same, you bring up a good distinction about what meaning the creator infuses, vs. what meaning the audience perceives, which is surely different. This is a controversial matter in itself. Some people think that the only meaning in a work of art is what the author purposely put there, and nothing else matters. Some people think that art means whatever you think it means, with no restrictions.

I think both points of view are total bull. The latter is more easily mockable. It goes hand in hand with teaching children by accepting and encouraging the wrong answers to mathematical questions, because, since it doesn't feel good to be wrong, nothing should be allowed to be wrong.

At the same time, I don't think that unintended meaning is insignificant, because I do think that a great artist who starts with a great idea can purposefully create his art in such a way as to inspire further thought on the part of the viewer, who brings his own experiences and philosophies into the mix.

But there's a distinct difference between thought on the part of the viewer that is deliberately inspired through a work of art, and thought on the part of the viewer that is merely triggered by accident. We may not always be able to make that determination in all cases, but if we accept the extremes, we know there is a fine line somewhere between, and that is progress, at least.