args

Everything can be Construed as Art

I believe Con is fixated on what is or is not art based on whether or not it is legal. Again, I do not believe why this is so, and he fails to explain it other than state that vandalism is not art. But then, what is art, according to Con? Con gives almost nothing about what art actually is, and mentions more so about what art is not, mainly that it is not graffiti in public places. Why? Because it is illegal? Would that mean that if the government bans art, then art would cease to exist? Also photography is a valued form of art, it takes skill to capture a certain feeling, a certain angle, a certain expression. A photography can inspire as much feeling as a painting. I do not understand this discrimination, and Con does not explain it either. It almost feels as if Con mistakes art for something objectively good and tasteful, but that simply is not the case. Art can be bad. It has no limits towards either extreme. To conclude, art is not object oriented. Objects are not art by their nature. Their value as art are projected upon them by the agents with the ability to give creative values to them. And thus, everything can be construed as art. Thanks to mostlogical for this debate. And I look forward to his conclusion.