My criterion (which is no more valid than anyone's) is that it's art if it elicits emotion. This clearly does. I'm fairly confident that this has already intellectually/emotionally stimulated the human race more than, say, some stodgy Renaissance portrait of some figure of minor royalty.
As for the people complaining about this being a waste of money, please, give it a rest. I assume you don't have cable TV, or a car, and live like Gandhi, if you feel you have the right to complain about how this guy spends his money.
Comments
My criterion (which is no more valid than anyone's) is that it's art if it elicits emotion. This clearly does. I'm fairly confident that this has already intellectually/emotionally stimulated the human race more than, say, some stodgy Renaissance portrait of some figure of minor royalty.
As for the people complaining about this being a waste of money, please, give it a rest. I assume you don't have cable TV, or a car, and live like Gandhi, if you feel you have the right to complain about how this guy spends his money.
My criterion (which is no more valid than anyone's)
Isn't that sort of begging the question?
It's also wildly presumptuous to declare that no one else could have a more valid understanding of what makes something art.
As for complaining about people complaining ...