[wazoox]

There is a large branch of modern art, "conceptual art", which is precisely dedicated to making art of anything, just a concept. Typical examples are ordinary objects, sometimes not even transformed (for instance, a water bottle on a column). It can be traced back to the 1917 "ready-mades". There, the art is in the intention of the artist and nothing else. Sometimes you may feel cheated. Sometimes, it's brilliant. That's art. Like for everything else, 90% of it is simply mediocre.

[scott_s]

I expect that whatever shows up in the MOMA to be the 10%. Further, the "intention of the artist" is completely lost if there is no explanation, and the work is shown in a gallery without context. Something has to give.

[wazoox]

> I expect that whatever shows up in the MOMA to be the 10%.

Fair enough.

> Further, the "intention of the artist" is completely lost if there is no explanation, and the work is shown in a gallery without context.

However, some of the strongest form of art today (prehistoric cave painting) have lost all of their context and hope of being understood. I think we can manage without any explanation most of the time.

[mturmon]

OT, and tardy to boot, but your comment reminds me of the only song I know about cave painting, "The Caves of Altamira", by Steely Dan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBCa9WPHlWI

"Before the Fall, when they wrote it on the wall, and there wasn't even any Hollywood..."

[scott_s]

Prehistoric cave paintings have an anthropological interest outside of just their artistic interest. I'm much more interested in those as a scientist than as I am about someone trying to appreciate art.

[wpietri]

The stuff that shows up in the MOMA is surely the top 10% for some audience; otherwise a curator wouldn't have bothered with it.

If you're expecting that it should also be in your top 10%, well, then you have created yourself an expectation. If eventually that stops being fun, there are other things you can do.