well?

there is a difference between art and being watered down commercialized shit, or just complete shit. You don't have to like it, but you have to acknowledge it. For example, Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer engage in the "art" of cinema, yet they make terrible, terrible films. 3 Doors Down engage in the music arts, yet they make awful music. These examples are not artists. Art is a formalized extention of a person's inner thoughts, intellect, and soul. IMO.

then by definition and a little bit of logic, can you see how it is unfair of you to ask three doors down to conform to what you think is sincere?

Art is something that requires you to think.

Art should be challenging. Something not to be taken at face value.

I think art is complete bull shit in mainstream terms. The other day I read about Britney Spears new reality series, and she was talking about taking her "art" to a new level. I think to most people art is defined as "creating something from withen yourself." In that case every time I take a shit I'm making art.

For me art is something that inspires something withen myself. So I define it under my own terms. If it evokes no real emotion, it is crap, and if I think about it for a bit, then it is art to me. Someone would have a real difficult time convincing me that Good Charlotte creates art.

That was great

But equally, the 'artists' you're denigrating such as Britney Spears are cultivated by the media just as Pearl Jam are in their choice to avoid it in the main. Despite this avoidance, it is still, to a certain extent, using the media for an image; it works by opposition. Therefore, how can one truly justify what is good or bad, this seems to me the real issue at hand here, in art when one is more concerned with what one likes?

So, does that mean Algebra and installing a new CPU fan is art?

But their 'image' isn't their art... the art is the music.

art is a physical manifestation of a driving desire to interpret, understand, and share the experience of being human.

Nature - x

True, but without their image they wouldn't have art for the masses, so we wouldn't know of them. It would be individual art, and we would suffer for not hearing it. Their art is their music, but likewise without a media image, they wouldn't exist to us at all. Sad but true how we live in the hands of the media whether we like it or not.

That is the motive of art.

how's a physical manifstation of a desire a motive?

Well, when you go to the toilet that's a physical manifestation of a desire to urinate. The motive is urination. The same theory can be applied to your question.

This is like asking what is God. Everyone has their own opinion and interpretation. Why is it unreasonable for Britney to say she is taking her art to another level. Maybe her art is crafting a marketable image. Now, I think that really sucks, and I am not interested in absorbing it, but I do think it is unfair to cast her opinions of art aside. Just because I don't like it doesn't make it "non-art."

And, yes, some people do think that shit can be art. All potty-humor aside, can't shit make you think, feel, and experience emotions. I think it can be art.

Art, and its perception, is dependent on the artist and the audience.

so when I urinate, it's art? cool.

Speaking of going to the bathroom, is this art?

http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/001783.html

You seem to be confused. I didn't say urination was art, I merely tried to explain what was asked of me. It's up to whether you think it's art. It certainly has a genre though don't you think?