Art is, as the man said, very much in the eye of the beholder. Trying to define exactly what art is, never mind what constitutes artistic merit, is so much drivel doomed to an eternity as dried saliva on the floor of civilisation. And someone will frame it and flog it to the Tate Modern for a six-figure sum.
One person's art is another person's load of bollocks, and I should know. I find an awful lot of what is passed off as art - and from all periods, I might add - to be just that. Bollocks.
The panel which judges the Turner prize has an eye for pure twaddle, that's for real. The idea of passing off a room with a light turning on and off in it as having artistic merit, never mind its being awarded anything but the booby prize, just tells me that people have too much money and too little taste.
BUT, and that was obviously a big but, I am very much aware that I have set tight boundaries around what I am prepared to accept as art and that my narrow view is not shared by everyone. Therefore, display what you like. Call it what you like. If YOU appreciate it as art, then I guess it's art - to you. Just don't expect me to agree with your analysis ...
