can Duchamp? quite ridiculous.

I think that is pretty rad. Readymade, izzit. I like this conceptual art.

Yeah the woman doing it is *so* cool. Monkeys can create art I think, but not maggots. Art has an artist.

"Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them."

Art isn't an activity limited strictly to humans. If koko.org were up, I show you that Koko the gorilla named his(her?) paintings. Of special note here would be one of the paintings named after his cat. Koko got pleasure out of creating something abstract yet meaningful. I'm sure some part of the Down's did her stuff out of the same need. So I think that quote is right, except for the human part. :)

I think the key is does it intentionally impart a meaning or feeling. So we're agreed. Oh and except for the "man" part too ;)

Wow, leona. Tolstoy seems to be describing a biological virus in some parts. At least that's what I keep thinking.. because I think a virus is similar to art in many ways. They are both beautiful. How long will it be before a virus is constructed as only an item of Art, nothing more?

I think that the notion of intentionality being a prerequisite to Art is debateable, since it would mean that the items Judith Scott created are not works of art. For example, just look at all the things displayed in Found magazine!

Word up Tomo! You hit the nail on the head. People don't say 'art is in the eye of the beholder' because it sounds good. They say it because it's true. For example, the Jeep ATV was created for use during WWII. It was a simple, functional piece of machinery. Yet the Smithsonian has now placed an early model in thier modern art collection. Why? Not because the designer wanted it to be art, but because it is simply a beautiful piece of equipment. If you want intention in art, you are a snob. Some of the best pieces I've ever seen were unintentionaly beautiful. In fact, I would go as far as to say that unintentional art is the most beautiful because it is created strictly as a functional or emotional item not neccesarily for public view.

if they were the formations of judy's accidental slobber, then it wouldn't be art, but a deliberately created product of her self-expression is; like koko's expression of his cat (though the cat's a thing, not a feeling, which renders the gorilla thing still a little debatable); a beautiful sunset wouldn't be art, though beautiful, cuz it doesn't transmit a feeling from one to another. yeah i think art's a virus, but one we build, not employ. can you make art and not know it? I think tolstoy leaves room for that, as long as you made something that's an expression of a feeling and others respond to it.

True, the transmission of emotion is important, but why can't a painting by a maggot bring emotion to a human? If it's beautiful it's beautiful no matter who the 'artist'. Say you viewed the most visceral, loving piece you have ever seen. It produces emotions not experienced since childhood. Does that emotion change depending on who produced the piece? Do you feel differently if an asian man produced it rather than an asian woman? Hopefully not, art is where you see it, and while we can continue this debate forever we don't. We simply accept what art is or isn't to our peers. Why must we place the importance on the artist rather than the art itself? It seems self-defeating.

I missed quite a discussion. Here are my 2 cents on various points:

I don't think I agree with the "intention argument" either. As for a sunset not being art, I don't agree. Nature produces some of the most beautiful art -- animals and humans themselves are masterpieces of art. Sunsets, flowers, trees, etc. Not to bring religion into the mix, but whos not to say that the beauty of nature isn't transmitting a feeling from one greater power to the rest of us. I don't know that I believe that, but its something to think about.

As for viruses as art, this is an interesting thought. Especially now that we are entering and age filled with man made viruses (computer viruses). While generally distructive in nature, they do not need to be. I imagine it is a thing of beauty to a virus creator when their virus quickly spreads and makes the cover of the New York Times.

Perhaps anything is capable of creating art, but it only becomes art when one human shows it to another human. So while a beautiful sunset would always be a beautiful sunset, it becomes art when someone says "hey, look at that". And Judith's Accidental Slobber Formation is nothing until someone goes and frames it, takes a picture, and hangs it up at Tate London. If this is the case, perhaps Art is something that, although anything can create, only humans can enjoy. Perhaps.

I should mention since it seems apropos that humans aren't the only creatures on this planet capable of transmitting culture.

if everything can be art, then as a corollary, isn't nothing art?

i think l.t. was on to something when he said art is an activity. but this is the eternal and most human of debates, eh?

Yes, I believe that nothing is art. Conceptual art. :) The action of you pointing out "nothing" as art makes it art.

"Peter Sandback dismisses the notion that his concrete tables are in any way works of art."

Is it possible to create something in such a way that it's not art?

Thats a hell of a sales gimmic. Selling "not art" furniture. Genius.

I think Ryan has a point. The Sandback thing sounds like a total gimmick. "geez guys, it's not art. I don't know why you insist it is. Meanwhile let me count my pretty money."

most comments award: TOMO, "On the subject of art". congratulations to tomo.