IAWYC, but I think this thread is quite a bit past due for “art” to be tabooed. Since the discussion is partially about how modern connotations of “art” effect people’s usage its hard to say exactly when the line was crossed, but IMHO
“What you’re calling “art” is a small subset of the actual collage of human creative endeavor of art generally, and is better termed “fine art” (and in the context of this thread, you seem to be confining yourself to visual arts). Most of art made by humans throughout history and prehistory has been decorative and utilitarian in its impulses rather than created by highly-trained individuals working within a well-defined tradition and its strictures for the sole purpose of aesthetic expression—this is still the case today.
Modern Art itself is largely within the “fine art” category, and it includes all kinds of things you may be familiar with as “good art.” Could your five-year old do a van Gogh? A minimalist or Futurist building? A photorealistic painting? Salvador Dali? Matisse? Picasso? Monet? The buildings of Frank Lloyd Wright? Those things are Modern Art too”
Fair enough. I was aiming to answer NancyLebovitz’ question in a way that didn’t amount to just “your definitions are broken” without really explaining why I think that.
IAWYC, but I think this thread is quite a bit past due for “art” to be tabooed. Since the discussion is partially about how modern connotations of “art” effect people’s usage its hard to say exactly when the line was crossed, but IMHO
is pretty clearly getting into arguing over definitions.
Fair enough. I was aiming to answer NancyLebovitz’ question in a way that didn’t amount to just “your definitions are broken” without really explaining why I think that.