Posted on 18 September 2012 as a reply to #21
In a way, yes. And don't worry, you're miles away from being obtuse! :)
The observers are not the participants, but they want to be a part of something and one of the easiest ways to be a part of something is to say lots about it. I've often wondered why I bother making art when it seems the only outcome from it appears to be the endless cycle of why it's been done. During my art school studies, I really didn't feel there was any point in making art at all. I asked my contextual studies lecturer if it were possible for an "avant-garde" to emerge today, and it seems not because the world is reduced to a click of a mouse button, it is easier for anyone to engage with anything at all whenever they like. We probably suffer from information overload. If one uses the right words, then any art can be regarded as good or bad and, to my mind, the only thing anyone wanted to know was how much money they could make from it. Money is soul-less. Art, in my opinion, should engage with the emotional aspects of ourselves and it seems very difficult for me to do that in the western world. In my opinion, the skill, or craft, in an artwork doesn't necessarily have to be the physical act in making an artwork / art object.
As an example, a painting makes one think; a science programme on the BBC once said that to find the first example of human thinking, you had to find the first example of human paintings. It doesn't really matter what the subject may be in the work. I could paint a dot on a canvas and title it 'Square'. The work doesn't have to be skillfully painted as the title is taking on the role of skill.
It seems to me, that, with this in mind if anything can be justified as being recognised as art, then, anything goes. Eventually something will emerge that will make me choke on my cornflakes, and I'll probably say "I wish, I'd bloody thought of that."