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?

"primitive" art? Folk art? And outsider art?

Aren't these three different ways of saying the same thing or are there subtle distinctions?

"primitive" art? Folk art? And outsider art?

Primitive = cave paintings.

Folk = Grandma Moses or Rev. Finster.

Outsider = crazy people and prisoners.

Hey, I saw an ad for a movie with Simon Pegg and the guy from Black Books.

I'm thinking: GENIUS!

Rev. Finster

love him!

a movie with Simon Pegg and the guy from Black Books

Run Fat Boy Run directed by David Schwimmer

It's basically a cheap emotional handjob.

This is how I feel about Crash.

This conversation sparked a talk with my therapist about my anti-depressants, and my inability to write or draw when I am medicated over my normal baseline depression.

I always thought it was a cause and effect, that the depression fueled my creativity. But I'm wondering if it's a side-effect, like low sex drive or dry mouth or any of the other physical side effects of medication. I know that less medication means better sex drive, and no more dry mouth.

The Listening to Prozac dude says: Throughout history, it has been known that melancholics, though they have little energy, use their energy well; they tend to work hard in a focused area, do great things, and derive little pleasure from their accomplishments.

But that's just a snippet from Slate, and I have no idea what his backup is.

I can speak for the part about little pleasure being derived from accomplishments, and having little energy.

Depression probably doesn't have anything to do with creativity, but I think anti-depressants can derail it.

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.

Interestingly enough, Samuel Butcher, original Precious Moments "artist" was treated for bipolarity. Does that gain him any artist cred for you?