SoulPancake

@Harijan
I agree with you mostly, except for the contention that "how the art is interpreted to the rest of the world is just as important as the artist's own interpretation." I believe this is completely wrong. It doesn't hold up to to a basic hypothetical: Whose opinion is more important? Picasso's opinion about his own work (or his "intent") or the opinion of some housewife from Minnesota*? It's a nice middle-child idea that everyone's opinion matters, but it's not true. Some opinions are more important than others (depending on a whole lot of factors). I would even go so far as to rework the argument that you use towards the end of your post. If all interpretations are important, then none of them are.

*Harijan, if you just so happen to be a housewife from Minnesota, this was not a personal dig. I just picked a random occupation and slapped on a random state.

@schadenfreude
Art has a subjective definition, no matter what. my definition is something like this: art is expression. I figure as long as no crime was committed or no one was hurt to make the art, than we shouldn't be too concerned. I think the substantiality of what is art doesn't necessarily come from the artist, but the viewers who connect to it and support it. if someone wants to shit on a plate and call it art, fine... that meant something to the artist... i guess. and they can enjoy their plate of shit as a center-piece on their dining room table if they feel it should go there. but, as art is subjective, how the art is interpreted to the rest of the world is just as important as the artist's own interpretation. If this artist puts his plate of shit in a gallery and then people stop coming to the gallery, well, it has been publicly decided that this plate of shit, art or not, is not something they want to be around. and if no one comes to the gallery, the gallery isn't financially supported, and then this artist can't put his plate of shit in a gallery anymore. if we don't like some kind of art, then don't look at it and don't support it. the art that survives the spand of time will be remembered as art and the plate of shit will be forgotten eventually. unless i've severely overestimated humanity and it turns out there is an avid following of "shit-on-a-plate-ers." i guess anything is possible.
art is like love. or maybe love is a kind of art. i dunno, that's starting to sound hippy-kinda. art is everywhere, immeasurable, and the glue that binds society together and creates identity. this goes against the notion that if everything is art, than art is rendered worthless. air is everywhere, is that worthless too? we all have emotion, is that also worthless? we all have culture, is culture worthless? art can't be tangibly divided into what is art vs. what is not art. it's more than just the acceptable "fine art" or "dada." it's the effort and vision of the individual that has designed something. it's making emotion, feeling, and the imaginary a tangible, pysical entity, making art just as unique as these emotions, feelings, and imaginations. If everything is art, therefore making art worthless, than surely emotion, feeling, and the imagination would also be considered worthless.

People who don't want to think would say that shitting on a plate or making something else equally-inane and putting it in a gallery could be considered "art" - it belittles the efforts that good artists put forth. Everything is art in their world, essentially rendering worthwhile art worthless.

I think art tests our connection with reality.

No comment in this discussions so far has acknowledged the true presence of art in all of our lives. It is impossible to go through your day without encountering some form of art because it is so all encompassing and can come in so many genres. Painting, sculpture, architecture, photography, dance, music, film, fashion design, literature, the list is endless and the spectrum of possibilities for creativity and appreciation of all of these different elements is as expansive and wonderful as the universe itself. The problem is that much art is created in response to the universe (because that is where artists live) and some of the things in this universe of ours are not beautiful or friendly or happy, they are dark, gruesome and miserable. To have no art that makes people think "Oh my God, that is disgusting" or "that is unacceptable" because it is ugly or bloody or angry (or any other negative you care to think of) in its nature is impossible whilst there are things happening in this world that make people say "Oh my God, that is disgusting" or "that is unacceptable".

Also, some of the best art ever created was seen as unacceptable when it was first unveiled, but over time it has become an important part of our cultural and artistic heritage. There were riots at the first performance of Nijinsky's 'Le Sacre du Printemps' but it is now considered a vital part of dance and music history and heritage and the development of the arts for it's groundbreaking music and choreography. Examples of this nature can be found throughout the many categories of art and their respective histories and the people of the time had the same debate we are having now: "Is this art? Is it responsible art? should this be allowed to be seen any further?" etc and the answer, according to history, is yes. If it wasn't allowed and didn't continue art would not develop and change, we would have one less thing to talk about and our lives would most certainly be a lot less colourful.

Another issue is censorship. If all people are equal, which is I think, what most people would like to see happen ( because it is certainly not so yet), then it follows that no one person or group of people have the right to stop someone either making and showing their art or stopping people seeing art. Of course I do agree that there should be some restrictions on what young children should be allowed to see, a five year old watching a film full of sex and violence is obviously not a good thing, but that does not mean that that film should not be allowed to be created and then made accessible to the public.

Conclusion, art is everywhere, it is in a large part a response to the world in which we all live in and experience throughout our lives and no one can be justified in stopping a person creating their art or stopping others seeing it if they want to.

This is just my opinion. We are all free to think what we like, one of the wonders of the modern world and one of the reasons I can paint any picture I want!

I think that art is a portrayal of how the artist sees the world, here we are encouraged to share our views on spirituality and the like we are testing the boundaries of our beliefs and others.For an artist its testing the boundaries of his vision and testing others vision. It is what you can get away with, if we limit ourselves in beliefs or art, then is it truly a belief or a piece of art?

Art should be a sincere. It shouldn't matter who the artist is, what they were trying to convey in their message or the effect it has on society or culture. As long as it is truthful and sincere, then it can be considered a valid contribution to art. Art for the sake of art is tolerated vandalism.

The way I see it, art doesn't need a responsible relationship to society. I agree entirely with another quote from Andy Warhol: "Art is what you can get away with." and really, it's just that. Art is about pushing "the line," seeing just how far it can go before there are consequences. It's about expressing oneself in a different (sometimes extreme) manner. Something as outrageous (and somewhat disturbing) as Away From The Flock could be taken as a metaphor for the alienation and estrangement society throws at some people, or it could simply be perceived as little more than a dead sheep in a glass box. It's all about how you look at things, and what an artist can "get away with."

I watched a movie once called "The Shape of Things," in which a woman, for her MFA thesis, dated a man, and over the course of the months they were together, she coerced him to lose weight, change his hair, get a nose job, abandon his friends for her, change his wardrobe, and become more confident.

To her, what she shaped him into was art. However, nobody else thought so.

Art is subjective.

appreciation is a side effect of art. The purpose of art is that it is a compulsion the artist feels. On the appreciation side it comes down to wether or not the observer relates to the piace. The artistic process attempts to materialize an individuals inner experience so no matter what the materialization may be it has a definite relationship with society and is still art. Art really is everywhere

I think to question art is just as important as the art piece itself, what kind of relationship does the artist have with his/her work? Is the piece a pun, a cosmic joke, a coincidence, a subtle reminder, etc in relation the artist's life? our lives? Did Andy Warhol survive on campbells soup for a period of time? Did Mr Hirst pluck a dead sheep from a field or was the sheep a long time member of the family and the sheep had been placed in formaldehyde because Mr Hirst could not sever sentimental attachment to the beloved animal?