On Thu, 25 May 2006, Carrol Cox wrote:
> Correct, but it never did have any particularly useful meaning. It is
> really pretty pointless to argue about whether an object or event is or
> isn't art. For one thing, the way such arguments unfold it becomes
> impossible to give meaning to the phrase, "bad art," since the
> combatants in effect have have made 'art' a term of praise. "Good art"
> is therefore redundant; "Bad art" is incoherent.
>
> Carrol
Here's my (predictably) sociological take on this: what is or is not a work of art at a given point in time is a product of social negotiation, contestation, and consensus. There is no "essence" of art that shines through so people in every social context would define product X as art (in fact, the idea of "art" itself is culturally bound!). Put simply, X is art if there is a social recognition and validation of the work as "art": e.g., the producer of the work is respected as an artist, critics discuss the work, people pay money for the work, it is analyzed in art history classes, and so on. The platonic question "What is art?" is exactly the wrong question to ask here.
--As an aside, this is analogous to the Marxist view on religion (Man creates God), if that makes my pill any easier to swallow.
Miles