No it isn't.

I'm from the Dadaism camp of art theory, and so I very much believe what I said in my previous post is true. So: yes it is.

Art is anything that people create which some intended meaning conveyed through it, so no, it isn't.

So then there's no such thing as aesthetic art? Art that is merely beautiful or visually captivating?

It has to have a meaning?

There is. However I was specifically referring to art that some people like yourself would think is beneath what should constitute as art - and because it can be considered art, anything can.

Not everything is an artifact that has cultural relevance.

Not all art has, or needs, cultural relevance. Needing neither meaning, symbolism nor significance beyond "it looks cool".

I've not made any claim about a threshold for "artness", so I'm not sure where you're generating that from.

Might as well just call art "stuff" then and eliminate the needs for the word.

Created "stuff", sure, I can't disagree with that.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 8 2016 01:30pm