I'd like to touch on the very last thing Makio-Kuta said, as I feel at least it has a lot to do with why people can in today's society feel that art in general is 'useless'. From the sound of it I think that my definition and her definition of art are very similar. I love art, from my children's refrigerator drawings the painted ceilings of the Sistine Chapel, from great writers such as Poe and Shakespeare down to random bloggers expressing themselves as a form of release to something near and dear to them.
I could go on but I consider so many things to be a valid artistic medium that it would take an essay to cover them all. That said, one thing I've recently struggled with even considering to be an artistic medium is a certain type of 'modern art'. I'm not talking about Picaso or similar artists that distort the norm in some way to great effect, I'm referring more towards people like Sam Francis and Tiger Woods. So called 'artists' who's medium is easily replicated by five year old's the world over, yet said children's works aren't considered on par because they weren't painted by 'an artist'. My rule of thumb is that if you have to know who the artist is before knowing whether to praise or debase a work of art then it probably isn't art. (I actually tested this once years ago, believe it or not with a friend of mine who was always big into modern art. I had my daughter(7) paint a splatter painting on a canvas and then framed it up like a work of art. He wouldn't comment on it one way or the other until I admitted that it was my daughter who painted it. To me that proves my point, if there was really some secret I'm missing to how this form of art expresses then he should have been able to instantly condemn it as the work of a child, he could not.)
A more classical alliteration would be to look at the works of Lev Tolstoy, who's books are praised as masterpieces all over the world but I just fail to see them as such. (Note: unlike the splatter art, I'm not arguing that Tolstoy wasn't an artist or anything like that, but the example works towards my conclusion.) What I fail to understand about Tolstoy and probably never will is that it is so dry and plain that it fails to insight even the slightest emotion from me. His books are like a chore to read rather than a point of pleasure (coming from me this is a high condemnation. I never fail to read a book from cover to cover once I pick it up and I've read thousands of them, I'm always reading and Tolstoy is the only author outside of the writer of a school textbook that has been able to inspire this feeling of apathy in me while reading.), there's just no enjoyment to be had. In addition to this his books often force you to really think in order to understand what is going on (which is difficult when you aren't invested in the story to begin with). Whether in Anna Karenina where he reuses the names he uses as the main name for multiple characters (If I remember correctly there were two Alexis and at least 3 Alexanders in that book, along with several characters who had some variation of the name 'alex' in their name such as Alexandrova or some such. As much as I love that name being that I am called Alexander or Alex and my youngest daughter's name is Alexandria, this book made me really sick of the name. There's only so many different Alexs you can read about in one book without becoming hopelessly confused.) or the apparent objectiveness of "War and Peace" (Seriously, if you can find them, ask 5 people who have read this book what it's purpose is. I guarantee you that none of your opinions will be the same and that oftentimes they will not even be related themes.) These books greatly appeal to a person who wants to consider themselves 'more sophisticated' than the common man, but I've rarely met a 'common person' who has enjoyed Tolstoy's work.
I write two paragraphs using examples of high art that I hate to say this; that type of art, that is so abstract and confusing that common peoples struggle to grasp or find common ground in. I believe that art is purposed for the wealthy, the socialites and those who consider themselves the top of culture and class. It appeals to a certain type of individual and allows them to feel superior with their apparent insight into the complex enigmas of these 'great minds' who have created something so great, so emotionally powerful that only the top of the top of artistic society can even begin to grasp the enormous power and presence of said work. The problem is people see these works and say to themselves "this is nothing to me. At best it's a dated concept and at worst it's clearly worthless because I don't feel anything from it" and I think that that is where the misconception about art in modern society comes from. It's a skewed view on art in general that says "anything that person A does is amazing art because he's from an academy that teaches from the style of the greats. While person B's works are horrible because she didn't study at said academy and therefor her work is worthless." Even if person A is splattering paint randomly upon a canvas and person B is someone as expressive and brilliant as, say Makio-Kuta. (Not saying that anyone argues you aren't an artist Makio-Kuta, but when I think of under-appreciated artistic media video game art is among the first to come to mind and yours is some of the most expressive (literally, by expressions) forms of said art I can think of...+ you were the last poster. Though I know nothing of your artistic background or identity, and don't assume to.)
I just feel that art, since it is a form of self-expression, should insight some sort of emotion and feeling from the general populous that views it. Failing that, I have a hard time calling it art. Even if I don't feel anything because it doesn't relate to me that's fine, but someone should be able to relate to it, and when the only people who can have to know who it was that painted it and what that persons credentials are before sharing...it's just lost on me but makes me able to easily understand how one can come to the conclusion that art is worthless, it's not that art is but it's that people have attempted for centuries now to narrow the definition of art with a standard of what it has to encompass, which kills artistic vision and thus produces "worthless art".
