So let me propose a somewhat crude distinction between 2 kinds of art:

• Art consumed as a commodity , or used to sell a product. For many people, these kinds of works might not qualify as “art” at all, because they’re not intended to create an autonomous aesthetic experience. Their aesthetic qualities are often subservient to a functional purpose.

... See more

Yet, the definition of art hasn’t changed in 100 years, as W. David Marx explained in our recent conversation: “The best way to understand art is against kitsch. Kitsch is things that are made based on existing expectations of your audience. Usually it appeals to sentimentality because that's a universal aesthetic reaction. But art is something... See more

Artists are agents of invention who attempt to change the dominant conventions (although many individuals operating under the rubric of "artist" have much more pedestrian and commercial goals.)

1.9.1 The avant-garde exposes, devalues, and alters existing conventions in search of new cultural arrangements that could provide new aesthetic... See more

There’s a good deal of complaint about how flat contemporary art feels. Whether the problem is the failure of artists to create great art, or the failure of audiences and journalists to recognize (or seek out) great art, or some combination, I don’t know. Whether the key culprit is that art is too shallow and decorative or that it is too... See more

This kind of change has happened before, of course — a movement conquering the world, then passing into the past. Usually, it happens much faster. The heyday of tremendous rococo artists like François Boucher, Jean-Honoré Fragonard, and Antoine Watteau lasted just 15 years, at which point neoclassicism deemed it girlie and gauche. Instead, artists... See more