jvwgtr

That's an interesting music/art parallel that I was pondering while reading all of the "that ain't art" posts here.
It reminds me of my parents begging my teenage self to turn off the "noise" emanating from my stereo.

Arguing that Klein's painting isn't art because he used only one color -- and you could duplicate the work in mere seconds -- is like insisting that INSERT BAND NAME HERE's work isn't music because they only use three chords, and your five-year-old can play it on his Fisher Price guitar.

Am I now a music elitist because I like Nirvana, and Mom & Dad don't "get it?"

It's so interesting to me that music and art, in my view, go hand-in-hand...yet there are vast differences in acceptance.
The stripped-down exploration of raw sound and emotion of punk and other genres is widely accepted as pushing music to new levels...yet in the visual arts, the masses regard similar work as "crap."
The public's artistic sensibilities hold fast to the visual equivalent of Laurence Welk.
If it's not easily digested in a single viewing, it's not art...to me, that's the exact opposite of art.
But that's just me.

(For what it's worth, Mr Mephisto, you're my new hero)