Under the "Dotty" post, Joe commented:
"Eolake's definition of art is so ridiculously broad as to encompass anything"
Often when people talk about what's art and what's not, they use it as a value judgement, not a functional judgement. When you look at two paintings and say one is art and the other is not, what you're really saying is you like the one and not the other. I don't see much value of that, since it'll keep us arguing till the end of time because the terms used keep us from recognizing that we are merely discussing taste.
Even the feeblest child's drawing or the cheesiest souvenir figurine are art. When we recognize that, we then can have meaning talks about it's function, and discussions about if we like it or not, or whether it's effective art or not. Then we are going places, if we're lucky.
You mean, if someone doesn't even TRY to be creative or any other effort, if someone just lazily botches a job -and often a poor imitation job of someone else's creative effort- you STILL consider it art?
Geez, Joe was right : you really have a broad definition!
If a car is so sloppily built it falls apart half a mile off the dealer's lot, it's still a car.
A sadistic, murderous nazi is still a human being.
We might in anger say "that's not a car" or "he's not human", but if we wish to discuss things rationally, let's try to at least not let our emotions move around the basic definitions of the things we talk about.