I'm unconvinced by this line of argumentation, which others have tried before. Age and my attention cannot define art -- are you saying that something that is new or hasn't caught my (very brief) attention is not art? Or let's say it's not about me specifically, but rather about public impact: if something is new and known only by very few people, so that it hasn't really made a big public impact, does this prevent it from being art?
My very standard toilet has caught my attention -- and discourse, dare I say -- way more than Duchamp's urinal. Would most people consider my toilet art? Or would it need to be put on display in a museum?
Can you think of any man-made things older than a century that you wouldn't consider art? I sure can!
My very standard toilet has caught my attention -- and discourse, dare I say -- way more than Duchamp's urinal. Would most people consider my toilet art? Or would it need to be put on display in a museum?
Can you think of any man-made things older than a century that you wouldn't consider art? I sure can!