I don’t care much what people call ‘art’ and ‘not art’. I’m an adult and I don’t need an authorization or anyone’s validation to experiment and appreciate the deep emotional/spiritual/physical or even intellectual emotions provoked by what I consider art, even when others around me don’t like it.

What I do care a lot about (and in recent years I’ve been forced to care more and more about that) is when I see people deciding their own definition of what is art/not art, or of whatever else, should be mine too, must be mine (because they’re right and I’m wrong if I dare not agree with their definition and that should not be tolerated). But then, the question is not what is art/not art anymore.

The question is rather to decide what is freedom of speech and freedom of thought (edit: maybe even freedom of love). As well as deciding what type of society people want to live in, and if that society still deserves to be called a democracy. It’s quite a different question.

That said, in order to not be completely out of topic, here is my take on art/not art:

In 1917, Marcel Duchamp did put an urinal on display in an art exhibition. Was that art, or mere provocation? Over a century later, what is that urinal considered? Art? Provocation? Marketing? Financial investment? And how is Duchamp considered? And what does it make out of all the others persons that imitated and still imitate Duchamp, with or without a banana and a roll of tape?

Did you enjoy the last expo, art gallery, museum you visited? I did. A lot. And to me that’s what matters with art ;)

edit: slight corrections/clarifications