Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
"There was a time when "art" was reduced to include any and all expressions and the term really became meaningless. There was nothing to distinguish art from non-art. It was wholely subjective."
I don't know if the term is meaningless. There is a lot of wiggle room in the definition and I agree that it is subjective. That's what makes the question so interesting (to me at least).
The definition has changed with time too. I never studied art history but I'm dimly aware of the various movements: cubism, immpressionism etc. Some of those movements met with resistance where the initial reaction was "look at that crap!" but they've since been embraced.
"That brings up another question ....
Can something be "art" if nobody recognizes it as such?
To that I'd say "Yes", given the original intent and the character of the product."
I agree. Many of the painters who are now revered met with complete indifference or worse during their lifetime.
Thanks for the reply.
Tom Reese
