|
In general I do not consider anything that I can make on a random whim to be art. So to me "Monochrome Bleu" is not art because, in my mind, the word "art" bestows upon a creation a certain amount of dignity that acknowledges either its grandeur and/or the the skill and vision of its creator or the non-triviality of its message. "Art" should be reserved for these creations because, although the utility they provide to people is intangible, it's still definite.
Example:
I'm pretty certain that everyone who sees Michaelangelo's work in the sistine chapel for the first time will be impressed to some degree and will stop to analyze it bit, whereas "Monochrome Bleu" might evoke absolutely no response from a good number of viewers who simply see a blue square inside a white square. Almost no one would consider the former trivial because even if they don't like it they will at least acknowledge that it is a work of great skill and effort and represents many generations' view of their religion; some people would feel that "Monochrome Bleu" is wasting valuable museum space.
Final analysis: If there is a good chance that it is trivial to the point that it bestows no benefit --- artistic, philosophical, moral or otherwise --- to a large amount of viewers, it's not art.
__________________
LiuGuberlorious
|