Re:Is it me or is he sounding more desperate? (Score 1)

"Art" is nothing but a branding, marketing term. It's one of those fancy terms that you like to flaunt around even though they barely mean anything, like "natural" (go check out nature for a minute, it's not so pretty and clean), "pure" (pure what? pure molecules?), "traditional" (lots of "traditional" things were far from good), and "modern" (diddo)

The best proof of this is in the usage: every once in a while, something new pops up, and the groups that already the benefit from the "art" brand will start giving all sorts of reasons to defend their monopoly on the term:
- Art Nouveau is not art because it is "commercial" and served a usage (as though Renaissance artists didn't get paid, and their works weren't so that rich people could show off)
- Modern art isn't art because it's not realistic (neither were most art styles before)
- Photography isn't art because you're not drawing anything
- Cartoons and comics aren't art, unless it's classical American cartoons as they had unique styles, but Japanese cartoons and comics aren't art because they're generic, even when they are not.

On the other hand, the reason why anybody would insist having their work called art is precisely because they want in on this branding effect, even if they don't realize it in such terms.