To Hell In A Hand Basket

[Troy]

Yes it is. There are some elements to art that we must agree on, otherwise we would not be able to communicate, agreed?

Ok.

It has to have an artist controlling or creating it (I.E. even computer-generated poetry had someone write the original program and provide the input);

Who determines whether this person is an artist in the first place? Is he an artist because he says he is?

it has to have at least a potential audience (I only qualify it with "potential" because if a deaf person were to write a symphony that no-one else ever hears, I would have to say that art was still created), and it has to have at least one "artistic" aspect of it --

No, it does not have to have an audience at all. I know lots of people that create purely for themselves. Playing music and painting. Based on what I've seen of their other work, this work they do purely for themselves is undoubtedly art.

I realize that's kind of a circular definition, but I don't know how to put that in words, yet, other than to list all possible artistic aspects -- to tell a story, to evoke an emotion, to criticize sociopolitics, etc. But I don't know how to describe the abstract one -- I.E. Tangerine Dream, to make music for the sake of making music.

My dictionary says:
ART-
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Interesting to note the word "beautiful". Perhaps "pleasing" is a better word.

If I could add to that it would be that the the individual experiencing the finished product (even if it is only the creator) is moved in an emotional way.

It's not about intelect, it's not about analysis or reasoning. It is purely an emotional response.

See, but it is at this point that your analogy to rap falls apart.

Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?

Rap is not anti-art in the way that this effortless white canvas is, so I could easily point to this differentiation and say that that is what differentiates your non-art from rap, and that, by your own definition, rap still qualifies.

Not sure I ever said that "Rap can't be art". That said, no rap has ever moved me on an emotional level except to make me angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. But I won't deny the possibilty that artful rap (that isn't paligeristic of already existing artful music) exists.

But you just said that it was up to me! What if I were that goober? Wouldn't I be qualified to say that it's art?

Sure. Just as qualified me saying it's not. Why should I believe you? Why should you believe me? MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!

So what you're saying is, IYHO, it is not art, but it is perfectly acceptable for the Recording Academy, or (by extrapolation) even the entire rest of the world to think so? I can live with that. You do realize that that makes you "wrong". By my definition of "wrong", of course. And most of the rest of the world's. Or at least the Recording Academy's.

Nothing about my opinion is humble, sonny. I'm a "Legend in my own mind", remember?

Yeah, a Recording Academy that called Milli Vanilli the best new artist, called Jethro Tull best metal band and nominated Fountains of Wayne for best new artist this year sure has a lot of credibility!

Do you really thing "most of the rest of the world" even has an opinion about this nonsense?

Yes, your definition of wrong is wrong. nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Pink flamingos are pink. IMHO.

Your opinions are as humble as mine. And Pink Flamingos have white bellies and black around their eyes, so I question the validity of even that.