> I do think of art as a tool of communication, but I also think of art as a tool of introspection.

On whose part? Introspection on the part of an audience member is triggered first by a communication. Introspection on the part of the creator is called "introspection." To call the product of introspection art simply by virtue of *being* the product of introspection is something the lack of a strict definition of art allows, but I contend it is an wholly unuseful one.

> 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.

A small nitpick with the word "popular" here: I don't mean that art is appropriately judged as "art" or "good art" by the masses. It's perfectly valid that an artist create a work of art that few people have the perspective or life circumstances that the artist requires as sort of prerequisites to experiencing his art, such that the masses may not find meaning, whereas a few do. That can certainly still be great art.

But to address your point more directly -- establishing that other people's opinions more likely determine the goodness of art rather than the status of art in the first place -- well, certainly. An elephant is an elephant, regardless of whether someone thinks so or not. An elephant is a "good" elephant (for intelligence, behavior, breeding, or whatever) based on someone's opinions and standards.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're refuting my argument with this point, I'm missing something. My stance is that art is art if it has *something* to convey, whether or not it ever has an audience to do so. For that matter, I don't even think the goodness or badness of art necessarily depends entirely on other people's opinions, but certainly its impact on other people, particularly its intended audience if it has one, is telling.

> 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?

Yay. You asked that question better in ten words, but I wouldn't call your post art either. A little odd? Yes. But why this is considered a virtue is beyond me.

You have, perhaps, sold me on this work as being a work of philosophy. I'm not prepared to give it the respect you think it deserves, but I can at least comprehend appreciating it as a philosophical exercise. But even as that, it basically fails. Does it answer the question, or at least work toward an answer? It asks the question, certainly, though less succinctly than you did. But what good is it to anybody unless the work does something to make progress in answering that question?

In point of fact this work's service can be fully appreciated without ever being performed or heard. What use is a art of art whose purpose and meaning can be wholly conveyed by hearing someone tell you about it?