My friends and I were talking about what exactly can be considered "art." This discussion was sparked by looking at some modern art acrylic paintings. They looked pretty cool, but they also didn't look anything too special to any of us. We kind of left the question hanging and went on with our day. Then the next day i was reading a chapter from "Timequake" by Kurt Vonnegut. It was a letter from Vonnegut's brother to Kurt. Kurt's brother, who was considered very "un-artistic," had created these interesting prints by squeezing various types of glue between two sheets of glass, and then pulling them apart. Vonnegut's brother was asking Kurt whether this was, in fact, art. Vonnegut replied that he doesn't consider much anything inherently "art." It has to be presented to be people, and if recieved well, it can be considered something, probably art. Even most of van Gogh's artwork wasn't appreciated as anything more than globs of paint until it was publicized after his death. Jackson Pollock dripped paint on canvas in various ways, but the people loved it.
Well, i figured i would share this rant with you guys, and see what your opinions are on the matter. After all, most of us are amatuer artists, and the entire deviant art community is a great living example of the arguments for and against this idea.

Congrats if you read this entire post,
Adam