>There must be social recognition and validation but by whom and in what numbers? The fart performance
>will soon be forgotten and no one will in all likelihood do it again. If they did it would be ignored. This is
>what I meant by art must be reproducable and still retain some if not most of its original meaning. If I paint
>portraits in a style reminiscent of Klimt, and it is done skillfully, it would most likely be considered art by the
>person who bought it and by most who viewed it. Certainly it would be derivative and not change peoples
>perceptions of art nor would it influence others after me but it would still be art.
>
>
>
>
In my view, you're making this way too complicated. There is no
universal, defining characteristic of art (e.g., "must be reproducable",
"original meaning"). At different times and different places, different
social standards emerge and are maintained for what makes something art,
just as different standards emerge and are maintained about God, family
structure, and formal schooling. Figuring out what "art" is in a given
society by trying to identify the platonic form "Art" is exactly
analogous to making sense of religion in a society by trying to identify
the true essence of God. As Marx pointed out time and again, this way
of thinking just leads us down the garden path and distracts us from the
incredible power of human activity to shape perception and the material
world. Back to praxis!
Miles