Frank E. Thomson, III wrote:
>
> While ideas of high and low art, fine art and folk art, good art and bad
> art have been used all to often to promote the ideals of one culture over
> another, there is bad art.    The difficulty is defining bad or mediocre
> art.  In classical European art one can discuss why some artists or
> considered better than other cultures, but can the same criteria be applied
> to other cultures, say Oceanic, or other styles, say Minimalism.  Can a
> work be defined as bad art if it is only seen in a positive light by the
> creator, and a few close friends and family.   Can bad art  be defined as
> having no interest or negative connotations for the overwhelming majority
> of viewers?
>
> Certainly in this context there is ample reason to discuss whether
> vandalism oriented graffiti is bad art.  The definition of good art versus
> bad is no easy task, and the fine details are going to remain in constant
> flux, but to say that no criteria for quality exists, to talk about
> avoiding promoting hierarchies is to avoid the problem not to solve it.

this all leads me to ask why we need to bring "art" into the discussion.
most cultures that i've studied (other than we in the west) tend not to
even have a category called "art."  as you hint at above, it is fair to
question a purely western interperatation of "other" art.  but i have to
ask why even bother calling it art?  that only forces us to fit it into
(one of) our categories of art.

it seems we need to call something "art" as way to justify our
appreciation of it. (BTW i am not accusing the person i'm directly
responding to of doing this).  but, generally speaking, the posts i've
read in this thread are from people who seem to feel uncomfortable with
the idea of graffiti as "art" and others who are offended that graffiti
is considered too "low" to be art.  the common bit of ideology on both
sides is that "art" is somehow more "sacred" or "valuable
(spiritually?)" than non-art.

i've visited and worked in collections that have a great number of
asian, oceanic and even european and american artifacts, decorative
pieces and utilitarian objects that are wonderfully eye and mind
pleasing examples of human creation.  but why call them art when their
makers didn't even do so?

it is not denegration of a thing to NOT call it art.