Wall of Fame -- aka the condom wall

[Margalis]

99% of discussions attempting to define art hit the "wall of shit" where someone says something really original like "what if I shit on the table and call it art, does that make me an artist?" and "how about if I draw a face in it, is it art now? Eh? IS IT?".

The art world has brought this on itself by making these sorts of questions legitimate when they should be ridiculous.

I would also say that if anything with artistic intent is art but not good art then clearly when people argue whether or not something is "art" what they are really arguing is whether or not it is interesting and worthwhile art, not whether it is "art" by definition in that you totally were trying to create art when you took a dump in a bowl.

[jakonovski]

The art world? I don't think there's a central committee out there deciding what counts as art.

edit: if anything, I'd say this is what democratization of art leads to. We've gone way beyond commercial and religious illustrations of the 17th century (the most uncontroversial form of art you could imagine today).

[Paelos]

The art world? I don't think there's a central committee out there deciding what counts as art.

No, but there are several local and state organizations that do, and give grants as such.

[Margalis]

edit: if anything, I'd say this is what democratization of art leads to. We've gone way beyond commercial and religious illustrations of the 17th century (the most uncontroversial form of art you could imagine today).

There's no democracy in the art world. The average person has zero input on what gets put in museums. What is considered museum-worthy art is determined by a very small group.

[lamaros]

You could say the same about food, or any number of things, music, books, etc.

Also galleries these days are far more beholden to visitor numbers and so forth as metrics to work out who gets sacked and the like.

[jakonovski]

The art world? I don't think there's a central committee out there deciding what counts as art.

No, but there are several local and state organizations that do, and give grants as such.

Point, but I'm pretty sure those are dealt out in a diversified fashion. Ie. the condom wall may get a grant and thus official recognition, but there is no agenda to push for more condom walls.

[jakonovski]

edit: if anything, I'd say this is what democratization of art leads to. We've gone way beyond commercial and religious illustrations of the 17th century (the most uncontroversial form of art you could imagine today).

There's no democracy in the art world. The average person has zero input on what gets put in museums. What is considered museum-worthy art is determined by a very small group.

I agree with lamaros, there's plenty of popular input. Art has never been more diverse, something I do not believe would happen if there was a small cabal pulling the strings.

[Margalis]

I agree with lamaros, there's plenty of popular input. Art has never been more diverse, something I do not believe would happen if there was a small cabal pulling the strings.

A "small cabal pulling the strings" sounds sinister but that is how museum curation works, and unlike things like books and music (which are controlled by publishers to some extent) there are very few avenues for artistic recognition or distribution outside of curated establishments.

Traditional art is something that must be viewed in person, in a controlled environment, in a relatively small number of establishments across the globe. It benefits very little from digital replication, and stuff like performance art and art installations benefit even less. It also depends very heavily on the individual tastes and whims of private collectors.