FWIW, I think Bay's The Island is a piece of trash. I'm not convinced that every movie is art. Art is inherently personal, yes. But it isn't art just because it was created.

I haven't seen every Bay movie, but The Island isn't art. I think "art" is something that is creative, that ultimately will prove influential, that is unique, laudatory. Art isn't everything.

I cannot draw or paint worth 2 damns, but if I paint something tomorrow, it won't be art. It will be an attempt at art. But it won't be art.

my Mom and I keep having this conversation but one thing we can agree on is that art elicits a reaction. The gag reflex counts as a reaction. Therefore Precious Moments is art.

edit: Wikipedia says, "Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art. Art is also able to illustrate abstract thought and its expressions can elicit previously hidden emotions in its audience."

The gag reflex counts as a reaction. Therefore Precious Moments is art.

No, that's a false construction.

I believe that the SOB who created Precious Moments intended it to be art.

It is art. It's just bad art.

What makes Precious Moments fail your art test, David? I'm assuming your test is not subjective.

The gag reflex counts as a reaction. Therefore Precious Moments is art.

No, that's a false construction.

Not David, but I'm not sure that was the point of the objection. As in, I had a similar reaction to tommyrot's cat story in Natter tonight, but I'm not prepared to call it art on that basis.

Speaking for me, I'd have to say PM is, sadly, art. Or maybe was, when it was created/envisioned, but no much with the mass production?

What makes Precious Moments fail your art test, David? I'm assuming your test is not subjective.

It's cliched, sentimental. It panders to its audience instead of expressing the artist's vision. It's a trademarked company, not a particular artist's work. It's basically a cheap emotional handjob.

I wish I could find a picture of "Red Plank" the piece that started the whole "what is art?" debate for me and Mom but here is the artist's Wikipedia page. My first visit to the MCA in Chicago I was but a wee 'un and there was this piece of wood painted red and leaning against the wall. Mom had a very hard time explaining to me how it ended up in a museum and to this day "Red Plank" is family code for, "art is in the mind of the artist". Decades after my first visit to the old space Mom and I went to visit the new MCA in it's gorgeous digs on Mies Van Der Rowe (artist?) way. We walked in and took a left and busted out laughing in unison as there in front of us was a piece of wood painted green and leaning up against the wall. "Holy shit, it's Green Plank!" we finally said after we could breathe again.

Mom had a very hard time explaining to me how it ended up in a museum and to this day "Red Plank" is family code for, "art is in the mind of the artist".

People say that about William Carlos Williams' "Red Wheelbarrow" but that's not true. Often a work which is stretched beyond your expectations is doing that purposefully. I don't think it's enough to simply say "art is in the mind of the artist." The rewards of art often require that you meet the work on its own terms.

In any event, the "Red Plank" is part of a long line of works coming down from Duchamp's urinal on a wall which are there to ask questions about the nature of art. So at least on that point, it served its function in your family.