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.

I'm of two minds about what art is. There's a part of me that believes the elitist line that to create art you have to have practiced the craft and perfected the skills and understand the whole language of the field of art you practice. (But maybe that's the path to great art?) And there's another part of me that thinks we all have the capacity to be amazingly complex creative beings. Some of the greatest theatre I've seen has been amateur work. And it was great not because it transcended that amateur status, but because it was entirely amateur and totally lacking pretension. One was an elementary school production of The Caucasion Chalk Circle (as my friend said "They have the Alienation Effect down." ) and the other was a church group's production of one of the cycle plays. Both were incredibly rough in execution but perfect expressions of the spirit of what they were performing.

I used to have a friend who was an actor who always used to say things like, "I wish I could be a farmer or a fisherman and kead a simple life and think less complicated thoughts." But whose to say that Joe Fisherman is not outthinking Descartes, or maybe has the potential ability to sketch as well as Rembrandt? But because circumstance, or inclination, or intent, he hasn't brought that creative side to the fore, or ignores it, or has rejected it for whatever reason. Certainly intention is part of creating art.

And what about "primitive" art? Folk art? And outisder art? It may not be created in the greated of conditions, may be without sophistication, or taste, maybe is created with junk. Is it art? When is it art? When it's being sold by the roadside? Or when some dealer puts it in a gallery?