"a load of crap" being my assertion that art is a dialogue, or Soocom's assertion that art is a message?
If the prior, I disagree - art develops as it is discussed, not upon it's creation.
Someone posted a pic here of the terracotta warriors a while back. You may like the pic (i did) but i didn't consider the pic art. Even though i suppose you could say it spoke, communicated, whatever in some way perhaps. Did like the pics though, fascinating. What i do consider art is the warriors themselves. But i don't consider them art just because i have seen that pic and know about them now. They didn't start to become art because i suddenly had some revelation about the existence of these warriors. They had the same purpose buried in the ground and unseen than they do now and the same qualities. They existed as art (in my mind) buried in the ground, not saying a thing to anyone, unseen. They don't need my permission to exist as art. They were given that by their creators. By both of your calculations. I am under the impression that anyone could snap a digital photo with a compelling composition that communicates. And that digital image would be conisidered art then more than those terracotta warriors before they were unearthed. Sorry, i can't make that leap. i just don't see it. Just as i can't see the history, purpose, or context, or methods in which the terracotta warriors were brought into form having nothing to do with them as art. As such things caused them to be formed in that way and still effect perception of them to this day. (hence the kill the final image philosophy which should have been dead long ago).
It almost seems as art diverged, and broke off. what is deemed as art now concentrates nearly entirely on aesthetics. which seems to be what you two were discussing in your posts. Aesthetic art. If art should have been narrowed to such a category and become so prevalent to be considered in such a way i am just not sure is correct? When other factors of the art are subtracted according the the link you posted it seems even more driven to aesthetics only. I could be wrong? But it seems a cycle that almost precludes narrowing it down to a more and more shallow form. As now we have pieces that can have little real weight, but are still considered art on technical merit or if it says anything at all.
Perhaps the drive to this end, especially in photography, is somehow trying to find justification of our work as legitimate art. By separating it from the more tangible works. So as we concentrate more on just "meeting the criteria" we also lower the bar to "if it has some composition, form and says anything it is art"This is all aesthetics though. How pretty is it? How pleasing to the eye? But what we are left with. And in doing so we put our digital photos which we can more easily meet this aesthetic criteria with into this realm. Which before was reserved for more artisans, or at least of perhaps much greater caliber than us.. Like our manual cameras or digital cameras and photoshop earned us the same prestige.
Not to say none of us are artists, just seems our quality might be suffering so we seek easier methods in which to achieve. Concentrating on aesthetics, something we can more easily do, makes that easier. But will anyone consider anything turned out under these principle art in two hundred, five hundred, years? I find that doubtful. We may want to get out some chisels and learn to sculpt.