> "Art" is the arrangement or re-arrangement of articles, natural or made, into a form that has no intrinsic use or purpose other than as decoration.
This definition would please the exponents of 'found art' - those who will take (usually) utilitartian objects and place them in odd (even provocative) ways to evoke thoughts in the viewer. In my eyes though putting, for example, a tampon in a teacup is neither a great idea, an achievement, or a deep way to look at the repression of women.
> How many people have to agree that a piece of "Art" is good before it is acceptable for public display?
The idea of a 'Canon of visual art' is flimsy to say the least. The practice, often by excellent artists of 'creating' such ridiculous works as 'An empty margarine container' seems to be their way of sticking their finger up at the ego oriented 'artistic community'; for there are too many critics and too little art. Mind you I can think of a few living artists I like - not surprisingly they're all women - the rest shouldn't be dubbed 'phart', but simply 'wank'. I think institutionalized modern visual art has, per se, lost any credibility among the general population except in its most direct and anonymous forms like that of graffiti and crop circles.
