response to misty's so, you got a line on some paper...

you asked: if society views an object as art, does it make that object art?

i think yes and no. society as a whole will never, ever agree unanimously on anything, discounting perhaps that food and sex and water and sleep are good. because of this, part of society could view something as art, and then it would be art to them - there will ALWAYS be those dissenters who'll squabble and moan, thus excluding the possibility for art to be art because society views it as such.

yes: we discussed intention of the behalf of both the artist and the art observer. if you prescribe to this theory, then yes, art is any-freaking-thing that either the artist or the art observer deems "art."

no: again, you'll never get all hands up on any issue. someone could crumple a piece of paper up and then drizzle it with chocolate syrup and a maraschino cherry and stick it on top of a traffic cone and call it ice cream. i'd call that a piece of trash and a waste of a good maraschino, but the artist would definitely defy that view.

tricky question, but thought provoking.

if you can get MOST of a room, a town, a city, a country, to agree that a work is in fact a work of art, then is it art? is it an issue of majority, or simply of one observer agreeing with the artist? is that agreement even necessary? is the artist's intent enough alone?