args

Everything can be Construed as Art

Rebuttals Con agrees that the Mona Lisa would not be art without those with the capacity for art. Let us observe what this entails. Art does not exist through physical craft alone, it lives within us, with our ability to project creative values upon objects. This is the artist's relation to art. Art is not exclusive to physical artifacts. The construct of the mind is the origin of art. Con posts various photos including vandalism to site that they are not art. But his arguments are mere biases. It is just as conceivable that a man may look at the Mona Lisa and see nothing but a mundane woman without any artistic appreciation or feeling. My argument is not that all art is good, though what is artistically good is largely subjective to begin with. Con concedes that "An artist can paint absolutely anything on a piece of paper that we can see or imagine and it will be considered art even if it is a painting of vandalism" and then makes the odd argument that it is no longer art the moment it is interpreted as vandalism. I do not see why art must be exclusive from vandalism and pro has not demonstrated why this is the case. Then Con goes on to argue that "art isn't selfish". I also do not understand with what logical basis he makes this claim, and how it is supported. In regards to his picture of a penis, it is indeed, art, albeit, not a good one. In regards to Con's final argument, the moon itself is not art by ontology, art itself is a subjective concept of living beings. Thus, art lives within people's minds, their creative projection of values, their imagination. The resolution is not that the moon is art, it is that the moon can be construed to be art.