Is a pile of laundry art? Challenging an earlier debate

I thank the Opp for an intriguing counter to my argument. I will admit he has raised many valid points about the notion of what art is and what it is not. However.. 1. Art MASS NOUN] The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Works produced by human creative skill and imagination Firstly i agree in full with the definition of art you have provided in the sense that it is one definition of what art is, in fact i feel your definition helps my case but we will come to that shortly. Also i agree that art is subjective, so to start let us look at the definition of the word 'subjective' and a short commentary on art before we delve into my counter. subjective səbG2;dA8;ɛkt=8;v/Submit adjective 1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. To understand why a pile of laundry can be considered art we first have to understand, as the Opp correctly stated, that art in itself can be or in my personal opinion 'is' subjective. Subjective being defined above as 'based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.'. Art is not only the process of creating a work that gives the viewer a form of aesthetic pleasure, it is a way of portraying a message or even telling a story in more creative manner. In order to truly understand a piece of art you need to know not only the message that the artist is trying to portray but in many cases an understanding of the methodology behind the piece. Also Art at one point in human history may have been considered a practice for creative minds to create aesthetically pleasing work for the masses (as per the more classical biblical paintings, also please note i use the phrase 'may have been' i am well aware of the deeper meanings behind some of theses pieces), but as per recent years it has become increasingly obscure as artists try to experiment with more creative ways to portray their message, such is the case of the Minimalist Movement where the notion of less is more in an attempt to show the essence of the subject rather than the subject itself. Therefore as artists seek to push the boundaries further on what could be considered art, art is in a state of constant flux, ever changing, growing, developing, evolving where the definitions we held to yesterday would be considered incorrect the following day. Therefore whilst i do agree with the Opp's definition provided and i am happy to adhere to those terms, there is no one true definition of what art is or is not as art is very much perceived to be what it is by the viewer him/herself rather than the collective world as a whole. Whether or not these individuals agree with each other is irrelevant because for every 1 person who agrees there will always be 5 others who think differently. Whether or not a pile of laundry could be considered art is dependant on the artist behind the works. We have to first question how did the pile of laundry come into being?. Is it a carefully placed installation piece or is it in fact just a case of the artists dumping his/her clothes on the floor and attempting to try and deceive us all into thinking that this is a great masterpiece?. To create my argument i intend to use the Opp's example entitled 'After the night' which i will analyse and use to attempt to prove that a pile of laundry could in fact be considered art. Firstly i partially agree with the Opp on the fact that 'The story is the art', if we do take the back story to 'After the night' to be factually true then we do gain a deeper understanding of the sculptural piece in question. The piece jumps from being a random pile of neatly arranged clothes on the floor to a piece that holds great and deep meaning. For example the emotion and power held within the threads that speak of the last memories the artist has of their lost love, her scent that will remain forever on the clothing as well as the pain and the suffering that the memory of the clothes will hold. Whilst the piece may not be considered as important to the rest of the world who view it, to the artist it is a constant reminder of anguish of that fateful night in question.....a memory and feeling they are trying to share with the wider audience. Based on this notion i would like to put to the Opp that if, in this case, only the story is the art....could that story and the meaning behind it that i have mentioned above be portrayed in any other way? Therefore could it be argued that the pile of laundry has now become as essential to the story as the story itself?. In a sense the pile of laundry is essential as it asks the viewer to look beyond the outer appearance to the deeper meaning that is contained within....which while is in partial agreement with your notion of the story being the art...still renders the art itself relevant in this case. Granted this is a rather obscure way to portray that kind of message but even without the provided back story we can still observe this piece with no information what so ever, as an aesthetically pleasing, albeit random, installation and attempt to have some fun by analysing it ourselves using a variety of methodologies. For example we could approach it under the methodologies of Gender and Identity and ask ourselves if the Opp is attempting to invite us into a humorous discussion on the notion of the masculine gender. Is it a crude statement against the stereotypical general view of the male population as sex crazed, messy individuals with no sense of decorum? ....as seen by the phallic shape of the socks, wrapped around the waist of the jeans referring to the thought that men only think with their d***s, untidily places on the floor...left for some mother or spouse figure to deal with at a later time. Created as a way to say that the identity of the male is not to be defined by the stereotypical view of how the majority are perceived to act?. Granted yes this is also a cheesy statement and i understand that you may be wondering why i wrote this last paragraph. It is to further attempt to make my point that the art in itself is just as essential as the story because without that specific piece of art, the story in itself may be re told using a different medium but it will never be perceived in the same way that it would when viewing 'After The Night'. Let us take the Opp's original story, yes the essence of the story may be present in the new medium but the Aesthetic 'After The Night' provides would not...the scent on the clothing, the reminder of the painful memories, we can also question if the jeans were in fact a last gift. Conclusion I disagree with the Opp in that art can be defined by the artist who creates it, but in a wider sense i also agree that yes it is defined by the audience but that does not mean that a pile of laundry can not be considered art because that pile of laundry regardless of its story gives the viewer a unique insight into the world of the artist or the message they are trying to portray that, as previously stated, no other medium could achieve. Also as stated, whilst other mediums could portray the same message, if not better, the perception you gain would not be the same. Thus rendering the pile of clothing an essential part of the art if not the art itself. For, as stated, while the story can remain the same through a range of disciplines it is the 'art' i.e the physical piece before us that gives us that unique view and insight that the artist is trying to achieve. I do apologies if i have missed any points you have wanted me to cover but alas i am running out of characters. If so please notify me and i will answer them in the following argument.