> I think the essence of art lies in its ability to communicate or convey meaning to *other* parties.
> ...
> But a work that conveys *something* to another, that is art. Of course, the monkeywrench these days is that there are a fat lot of people out there who don't *get* art but won't admit it, so they prize and uphold whatever whacko art fad is going, thus perpetuating the illusion that something is being conveyed when, in fact, it is not.

This could be the case. It could also be equally likely that these crack-job art projects actually DO convey something to these people, people who have been exposed to various kinds of unorthodox art over their lives, and have found meanings for themselves within their seemingly meaningless exteriors.


> A creation that only means something to its creator is not complete: it can't stand on its own. If it depends entirely on the life, memory, and experiences of its creator to have meaning or feeling or impact, then it does not have meaning, or feeling, or impact.

I do think of art as a tool of communication, but I also think of art as a tool of introspection. If the goal of the work is to communicate, then certainly it fails in this instance. But art as a device of personal reflection doesn't care what everyone else thinks, and shouldn't bend over backwards to make itself appealing to others.

What I see in your arguments is a definition of "bad art": art that does not convey its meaning effectively. Popular opinion, or other people's opinions in general, determine this quality, which is much more in line of whether something is good art or bad art, as opposed to whether it is art or not.


> But the great thing about the present example is that there is no ambiguity at all. A piece of music stretched out to a period of years *can't* be art because of its very nature. To skew something so much that it exceeds the parameters of human perception *is* to extract from it any *possibility* of being "art." It can no longer convey *anything* to *anybody* except, perhaps, the notion that the "artist" should be committed. As a confession of eccentricity, it is, I admit, quite effective.

Therein lies the exercise in philosophy. They're taking a work that everyone considers art, and then slowing it down to the point that no one considers it art. Doesn't that at least strike you as a little odd? It's still the same piece of music, but now it's in a form that humans cannot perceive. It asks the question, is human perception integral to art? (It should be noted that this is speculation on my part. In short, this experiment *does* have a meaning to me.) Essentially, from what you've said, your answer is yes, the perception of others is integral. My answer is no, that artistic quality is independent of its effect. This is where our ideas differ.