If Art is considered to be a shit and piss covered bed or a park bench covered in KFC wrappers that sells for something in the £20 million+ mark then no, I'm not inclinded to agree.
However, is Art is a thought engaging, work of love and passion or really any emotion, one of the best and only paintings I did came about because I was pissed off about being hit by a car that day... obviously I wasn't hurt that badly, but it's still a downer on your day.
Then yeah, I can consider that art.
If it's just a plain white room with a single lightbulb that flickers on and off and again manages to sell for something like £60 million, then no, that's not art.
I know you're thinking "So if someone makes million off of it, then it's not art? are you against money?"
No, I'm not, like many artist, I'd love to be making any amount of money from what I love to do.
But these people who've made millions have put no thought into it and if they have then I seriously doubt it's more than "I wonder how I could exploit rich idiots today?"
I mean seriously, a park bench covered in food wrappers? A plain room with a busted lightbulb in it? A fucking Janitor could make those things by accident! Which admittedly would then give it some artist value. (Man's struggle with a basic technology in an age where we're near enough integrated into our machines to make life easier, it's a take on Irony).
right, enoguh ranting now.
Art is a term used more loosely then it's first thought, but for the majority people seem to only use the term when either they feel they're in the presence of real art, or thy think the term just seems fitting because they just can't their heads behind someone's latest money making exploit.