Quote Originally Posted by manacsa
Ronnoco,

Your explanation on the "artistic level" seem so to be of very high standards. Also, it appears that what you call art must conform to specific standards and include universal apeal..
You are perfectly correct. I have often been "accused" (and I use the term humourously since in some cases it seems more like an accusation, but not by you, by the way) of having very high standards in everything that I do and in my expectations of others as well.
That does not mean that I necessarily meet my own high standards either, but the goal and direction are alwalys present. I am impressed with anyone who can differentiate between high standards and the stupidity of characterizing arrogance.

Quote Originally Posted by manacsa
When someone not educated in those standards and has not achieved the milestones you have mentioned in the above quote....but uses a tangible medium to EXPRESS themselves...what do you call it?

The keyword is "express." When you hear a funny joke then you express yourself by laughing. When an average/sensible person is INSPIRED to EXPRESS themselves in a TANGIBLE MEDIUM.....what do you call the final OUTPUT of that motivation? Again, the example assumes the person has not education in the artistic form and has not been recognize an artist...
This is where even some art specialists make a mistake. Art is not simply self-expression through a medium. There is a distinction in levels of quality. Writing for example is not literature, since literature is a high quality of writing that deals with universal themes, structures, plot, characterization, and various other techniques. Amateur film-making often fails, because of the lack of structure, technique, organization, and technical excellence. On the other side, Alfred Hitchcocks movies for example can still be appreciated on many levels, long after his death and the death of most of the actors in his films.

Individuals often try to express themselves through painting but anyone with exposure to art and artistic talent can easily assess whether the person has the talent or not. Having taught various art forms to the gifted and talented, I have found that in the absolute best artists, it is part talent and part learning in the development of that talent. Moreover, I have also found that in the assessment of talent, skill and quality work in the arts, there is general agreement from those with equal experience and expertise.

Quote Originally Posted by manacsa
I ask this because it appears to me that you feel art is very specific without gray areas. Can't 'art' be a general word that can be categorized at different levels.

children's art
amatuer art
profession art
good art
bad art

But it's all still art, isnt' it? If not then what is it? Please don't call it 'trash', a term you like to use.
Unfortunately, based on considerable experience, it does not work that way. At one time, as part of a special project, I taught computer art to groups of 4 year olds, all the way to 16 year olds. I also worked with other artists who were also teachers and produced a professional video on my project.

To probably the surprise of many here, who do not have this experience, it is possible to distinguish between talent and art at any level. They were all amateurs but the level went from throw away work all the way up to work that was equivalent to the top level of professionalism in computer animation at any of Disney's studios.

Quality is easier than you think to assess. All you require is the knowledge and experience of seeing work at a variety of levels. Attempting art does not make you an artist, despite the best of intentions and expressing yourself by painting or photography does not make you an artist either. It is the quality of that self-expression based on the standards of the particular art form.

Ronnoco