Submitted by John Doe, Nov 21, 2007 09:26

Isn't that how the art establishment decides what is art? Or, more to the point, the formula is that it doesn't look like art and because a artist made it, it's art not just art but great art, because it's not art, so now it's a "breakthrough" since these Art Experts know that the audience/collectors couldn't tell the difference between good or bad. They only see well made or "condition," as they say in the antiques and collectables market. BUT and this a big BUTT [ha ha] if you go on the premise that it's art because an artist said so, you have to accept that an artist may say it's not art. So what if 2 artists say it's art, and 3 say it's not, does that mean it's not art? This is a academic question that one could go around and around about. This question was born academic just like all conceptual art.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.