I don't believe art has to be expressing something. The only example i can think off the top of my head now is Toshimaru Nakamura saying that he doesn't want to express anything. Would you thereby classify his music and indeed all of Jap improv as 'not art'?. I agree there are differences between art and entertainment, of course there are differences between the latest action blockbuster and an arthouse film, obviously the latter is expressive, richer and sensitive (ie 'artier') than the former. If one is made for financial gain is it constituted as 'not art'? An indeed, if one brings that into question, isn't most art nowadays made for consumption to at least some degree?
I guess what i'm saying is is that nowadays Art with a big A has come to mean a certain type of art with a small A, a type like Matt suggested. Because we can make this differentiation, isn't questioning whether or not something is Art seem a bit silly because it there is (surprise surprise) basically no dichotomy between the supposed difference between Art and non-Art art. There will always be argument between people about this topic usually over petty things like whether or not something actually LIKES the work. For instance, Person A says GTA is Art because he likes the game and generally calling something art gives it credit, but person B says its not Art because they don't like computer games. Its never-ending, and i think its rather silly, but nevertheless feel the need everytime it is raised to explain that if you question whether or not something is art, it generally always will be.
Bookmarks