That would be because art is different, and people are different.

It is a complex socio-historic substrate overlayed with current individualistic aesthetic tastes.

Hence the reason, that although sometimes beautiful Graffiti is considered by a certain group of people as a lesser art form than Oil Painting.

The question would be better put; Why do some people rate some art to be better than some others?
Answer; Different people like different things for different feelings.


(if you have any art to show or just want to judge or just want a good recipe there is a group called 'Art, Food and Bulbs' here, by all means tell us what and why you like and why you dont)

If I remember to snap a picture before my wife's friend takes my latest forray into lame artistry for her wall, I'll post it there

Yes, but is there a structure? And is to seek for such a structure taboo? Not that you imply that it is, but I want your opinion. I think it's natural to look for structure. And I can't help but measure other humans to some degree by what they consider beautiful.

When I found everything I could imagine was a form of relationship, I was, before that time using the word structure...Because you can see the way our forms structure behavior, like the way a clique tells one who the friends are and who the enemy is without the bother of thinking about it...

True of art and everything else, is that our perception and acceptence of our world is conditioned by our forms, so that they are not just forms of relationship, human relationships, but relations between objects and ideas like beauty...

Or the word you are looking for could be pattern, since that recognition of patterns in landscapes, in foot prints, in seasons is what first made man the animal into man the human, and it is yet a sign of intelligence..

Judgment of art is the domain of art critics. They're usually specially trained. I don't think communion with the divine is part of their official training.

It's funny to see how angry they get when their viewpoint isn't as influential as they think it should be... like in regards to Jeff Koons... who I happen to adore.

Everybody is a critic... Don't like it; don't buy it...

Yea. And that points to a significant part of art in our world: money. Money talks.

It swears... Think of a time when every person was their own artist, before they became alienated from their ability, specialized into jobs without art, initiative, or involvement... Any body could do most jobs and the only reason machines are not doing them is that they wouldn't know what to do with all the people doing nothing, and there would be no consumers...

There was an essay by Karel Capek (he coined the word robot) about when he was a boy and how fascinated he was with the craftsmen he grew up around. They weren't exactly artists: they were just making the stuff a community needs. Capek knew they really were artists.

Well said, both of you. Arjuna & Fido. It seems that every unity (be it chair or painting) which is beautiful is also art. Of course "Art" is a convenient term to distinguish that is made entirely for aesthetic purposes from the beautiful that is also useful. But an ideal life would be a life where beauty was always a consideration.

The meaning of the word art has changed as our concept of necessity has changed...Once art kept people alive, and now it only entertains..

I generally agree, but there is a small living stream of art in all the noise. For you and I, the purpose of art is living. I think that true philosophy is also art. As it is a beautiful unification of concept. It's true poetry, you might say.

Fountain (Duchamp) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When the everyday becomes the everything becomes art is everyday and everything is art.

I definitely see your point. Chance would have it that I work in an art museum....for whatever this is worth....

Even if everything is art, we tend to respond to some of it more than the rest. But what I love about Duchamp is that he helped art become self-conscious.

Modern art is philosophical in it's way. Art no longer represents the world but rather itself. The representation of representation. (But this is only some art, as others are keeping the tradition alive. John Currin, for instance.)

He sertainy gave it use.
Who is to say art is not function?
Who is to say art is not the ordinary or mundane?
Who is to say art is meant to mean art?
Who is to say art has to mean anything?
Who is to say art is not interaction?
Who is to say art is not just taking a wizz?

Are we responsible for our responce?
Is our responce responsible for us?

We just dont think that every responce we make is appreciation, appreciable. Worth holding onto and declaring.
We dont think or are afriad to think that our opinion matters more than what is expected form us. We are afraid of being self aware and afriad of being self-conscious.
Let the art speak for us.
We are in total control of all things and all art.
As long as i dont have to say a word.
As long as i dont have to imagine anything.
As long as it means something and it is used for its meaning.
Art no longer needs to speak to us.
We no longer need to hear it.
It can concieve itself.
Tracy Emins bed My Bed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
is that just so we dont need to speak?
Is that because everything is trying to communicate with us.
Everything is aware of us being it?
Just So we dont need to be so very much?
Modern art although art, no dispute, is still lazy and lacking no matter what philosophy it is whispering, it has actually ceased to be what they are saying and trying to teach you that it is.
It is no longer your bed, just a bed.
The object is no longer an object, it is no longer a bed.
It is no longer what it is trying to prove.
That 'everything is art'.
But the brightest understanding of this is that it is better art becaus eit is not displayed, it is better art because it is part of something, it is real and realsied more by its existence as part of our unconsciousness of its existence.
Art is real when it is lived.
Art is lived when it is real.
Taking it away form its life and giving it another one wher eit is not doing what it is made and created to be, that in effect it is no longer creating it is no longer alive because you have killed it and it can no longer create, just responding instead of the good art which is always asking.
This is a reply not a reaction.
It explains one thing, it insists one thing, it cannot mean anything your heart desires and does not or could not be imagined what to exists as.
There is no voyage, there is little and then no experience, there is nothing to appreciate, because at least if you could sleep in it, it would at least be appreciated, it would at least be lived.

I wonder if the gallery is where art goes to die?

(bit of a rant, need sleep, should have waited.)