Over a cup of coffee with a dear friend of mine, though to be honest I shouldnt have been having a conversation, my purpose was to jam out some political science homework...but hey....anywho we began a debate on the word "artist" and what constituted the title. It is his belief that to be an "artist" one must be able to create something out of nothing....and as humans, being the mortal limited beings we are we simply do not have this ability. We can only copy, build, "manipulate dirt" as he put it. A cup for instance is a wonderous invention. You could use it for various uses of varying importance but it is simply "manipulation of dirt". Same as anything else. We paint landscapes, people, fruit, abstract ideals....and this is not art because it fails to create something out of nothing. We are simply creating something out of something else. Genius still but not art.
I thought his idea was interesting enough though I can not say I agree.
I believe the idea of art is subjective to those who are experiencing it. You may create something I think is complete pish posh...it holds no value to me because I do not see it as art. Theres no interprutation for me to convey it as such. YOU may see what I do as the very same thing. Dull, plain.....not holding anything in it for you to relate to. Fair enough. Subjectional experience. Things are not always what they seem...and my reality it just so happens is not neccassarily yours.