This is not art

It all depends on peoples perceptions and opinions of the world. I wouldn't compare this art to the works of Da Vinci or Mozart obviously.
A black canvas could be considered as art to some depending on how they interpret it.
The silence could be considered as music to some depending on how they interpret it.
It all depends on the person.

I think this is wishy washy nonsense. My perception is that this is not art because it doesn't really consist of anything at all, and if we're to award the title to this we might as well to anything. For the title to mean something there must be some general cut off, pieces that meet a general level of skill and mastery in a certain field and pieces that don't; pieces that directly convey a certain level of stimulus to the consumer and pieces that don't. Canvases painted black and sheets of empty manuscripts don't come near to meeting any serious cut off I can imagine.

Just your opinion. Art is different for everyone so it will be difficult to find a common ground.
P.s. I don't actually think this is art either I'm just playing the devils advocate

Life=A
Piece of art=B

Your logic: B=B. A=A. So A does not equal B.

Faultless logic.

I sincerely hope that was a satire.

It was not a fair assessment of what I've said. Under the definition of art I've already suggested, everyday life does not qualify.

Only those who cannot truly understand art criticise art.

I think you are entirely wrong, I have a very good understanding of art history, both classical and modern, and this modernist rejection of criticism is little more than poison, it has reduced the arts to barbarism.

It's all opinion. Art is meant to create confusion and awe; that's the purpose of it. People shouldn't criticise art because it's not there to be criticised, it's there to arise bewilderment in the viewer and teach and be purposeful. A person who criticises and claims that "this is not art" does not truly understand it; they are criticising raw expression. What is "art" anyway, apart from pure projection and expression?

If all art is subjective, then the purpose of art is also subjective. I reject your purpose as one of many interpreations.

Only those who cannot truly understand art criticise art.

What a load of arrogant tripe.

My opinion is as arrogant as your first post that "this is not art".

I saw this, along with other random items, displayed in the Tate Modern when I went last year. All I can say is I am still very, very confused.

Below are two examples of so-called 'art works' that shouldn't, in my view, be so described.

The first is a painting that I once saw in Tate St Ives. It is a canvas painted black. That's it. No, really. That's it. On exhibition in a prestigious art gallery. I cannot find an image of the exact painting but below is a close enough example. It's not as difficult as you might think to find closely resembling images of black canvases.



The second example is a so-called 'piece of music' 'composed' by John Cage. It is called '4'33' and consists of four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence from the conductor and a full orchestra.



Birkenhead's law: Anything that anyone with the most basic cognitive and motor abilities can do on a first attempt cannot reasonably be called 'art'.

I welcome any challenges to what I've said, examples of 'works of art' you believe don't deserve the title and all other contributions.