I have a few (non-famous) friends in theatre that lead me to believe the flakiness is pretty widespread for that profession—not making judgement calls on relative niceness/assholitude, but the impulsiveness and emotion-based thinking does seem a common feature.

At work I generally deal with 5 professions: artists, writers, graphic designers, marketing people, and editors—listed in order of increasing reliability and decreasing incidence of colorful stories.

You've cut me off at the pass. I am no longer allowed to quibble. However, I will say, Hec, that I think your definition of art is personal, but in a way that weirdly claims objectivity. A "meritorious" work is a work in which you find merit, but, that presumes you have universally good -- and universally quantifiable -- taste.

(I've never seen you in a necktie or anything, but you have to have crappy taste in something! It's a universal rule! Why, I actually like meatloaf and acrylic sweaters [not at the same time]!)

but if something tries to be art and fails, its creator's got to be a bit of an artist, right? At least for the purposes of the crazy artist conversation.

Oh man. I always miss the fun stuff.

I don't think artists are more likely to be crazy or sensitive or neurotic or tortured than anyone else is. That conception is a hangover from the Romantics.

Bad art is still art. Food is still food even if it tastes awful. I'll go even broader than Fred Pete and say that if someone made it, it's art. Whether it is good or bad art is a different question. As usual I am with ita in liking bright lines, and that's the only place I can draw the line that makes sense to me.

Leading us to: I have not seen any Michael Bay movies, because they look stinky. But I have to say that his Verizon ad makes me laugh.

However, I will say, Hec, that I think your definition of art is personal, but in a way that weirdly claims objectivity.

I don't want to quibble because I don't believe you want to take the stance that there is no way to define art or judge good art. I could be wrong but I think that stance is unproductive. You might as well throw criticism away. Which is fine for some people, but again, not really what I think you believe.

So then it's a matter of discussing the differences in our standards instead of arguing whether there are any worth having. That's a more interesting discussion than starting with "Previously in Aesthetics, the earth cooled." I think we're both further downstream than that. I'm confident that we have some some common heuristics.

ita, however, I suspect might argue the radical stance that there are no defensible aesthetic standards. But she's further out on the galactic rim on critical opinion.

Bad art is still art. Food is still food even if it tastes awful.

This. If you write, you're a writer. If you sing, you're a singer. If you paint, you're a painter, whether or not you get paid for it, or publish it, or make it public. What you write/sing/paint is art, even if it's awful. If you're creating something original, it's art.

What makes good art good, or bad art bad, is completely subjective.

I don't know art, but I know what I like.

Do you know it when you see it?

And you don't mean porn?

But I have to say that his Verizon ad makes me laugh.

Hee! Awesome, indeed.