[card_zero]

Where does the "art is about inciting a response" theory originate from?

I went and looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art but couldn't find it there. The "anti-essentialist" section is good, though, I think. It has Berys Gaut listing ten properties of art, all of which are nice-to-have but none of which are essential. Then if a piece ticks lots of boxes it's a shoo-in, but if it doesn't tick many of them you can argue about it.

Some of those involve eliciting some sort of response, but you could also have a decorative piece with this combo:

(i) aesthetic, (iv) complex, (v) meaningful, (vi) idiosyncratic, (vii) imaginative, (viii) skillful, (ix) art-shaped, (x) intentional

Which would be 8 out of 10, to which we could add "completely ignorable" and it could still be art. I don't see why attention-grabbing and provocation is important, and it certainly isn't sufficient on its own, plus it's irritating.

[IAmBroom]

You are both entitled to your own definitions of "art".

[card_zero]

Relativist.

It's an idea, it describes something real. We can all make our own guesses and our own assertions about what that is, and then we can critique them and try to make them agree. There's no point just saying "we can all think whatever we like about anything" and leaving it there.