I know it when I see it

Nerdygirl's post of 9/27 (the part about art) obligates me to educate the world with the following post, not all of which is original:

First of all, I'd like to say I like Nerdygirl's approach -- just concentrate on the stuff that seems interesting or meaningful to you -- life is too short to
a) try to understand every piece of nonsense museums display under the name of art, or
b) feel inadequate because a certain piece of "art" doesn't resonate with you.

I understand it was Chekov who said "art is infection" -- the metaphor (paraphrased) being that the artist has an idea, a message, an emotion, whatever. The artist uses art to infect you with that feeling/etc. If that process takes place, then it's art -- if not, it's mental masturbation.

I've heard a lot of stupid stuff said by art apologists, much of it intended to make people feel stupid just because they didn't appreciate some piece of ca-ca someone decided should be called art.

Example: Are you outraged, shocked, annoyed? Congratulations, you're experiencing art!
Which is baloney, of course. Just because I'm annoyed doesn't mean you showed me art. I can shock and outrage you by peeing on your couch -- doesn't mean I'm an artist, does it?

Example: Responding to the question "What does it mean?" Someone sneeringly replied, It doens't MEAN anything -- art isn't ABOUT anything. Art just IS.
Again, baloney. If you want to pile your boogers into the shape of the Notre Dame cathedral (or paint an entire canvas blue), well more power to ya. But don't try to say it's art if it's meaningless to everyone else on the planet.

And of course, we've probably all heard the stories: the janitor who cleaned up an installation that looked to him like a bunch of detritus left over from a conversation around a coffee table (empty paper cups, cigarettes, etc). Because, guess what? That's what it WAS -- trash, not art.
Or the painting that was wrapped in burlap, and mistakenly displayed with only the corner showing where the museum had lifted the burlap to identify the painting. The only-a-corner-showing approach elicited much admiration ("innovative", "courageous", etc) from bozos who think the emperor's *supposed* to be naked.

Okay, now your understanding of this issue is on a par with mine. You're welcome.


Oh, and PS:
For funny stuff about art pretension, see one of David Sedaris's books (I think it was in Me Talk Pretty One Day) -- there's a chapter in there about his time at college, taking lots of drugs and pretending that all manner of moronic activity was artistic expression.