> I agree that art is not something easily concretely defined, but I don't really think "anything goes" goes either. You're not the first person I've heard argue that what establishes art as art is not dependent on any other relationship than the creation to the creator.
>
(snip)
> I think the essence of art lies in its ability to communicate or convey meaning to *other* parties.
>

In my art history classes, the definition of what makes 'art' was given as twofold. According to that, both relationships you mentioned are taken into consideration. Something is determined to *be* art by both the creator and the observer.

With the creator half, the work should be infused with meaning or aesthetic enjoyment of some sort. The observer should be able to sense this meaning or aesthetic as they experience the work, thus completing the other part of the definition. Essentially, art must be given something to convey, and then succeed in doing so. There is also a subjective element, obviously.

It's an interesting discussion, to be sure, and it can be rather confusing at times. But I rather like that definition.

Sosi"art major babble = fun"qui