clamsrus

If art is intrinsically a form of communication...then what in the process dictates that there has to be a receiver to interpret the meaning? (a la Schroedinger's Cat and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle)......and for that matter if an object communicates or evokes a response, positive or negative, in the observer, then can it be discounted as non-art if the evoked response wasn't deliberately engineered by the artist.

The foibles of translating personal experience and consciousness into artistic form is flawed, and inevitably the viewer reports different responses from what the artist intended. Subsequently if random or seemingly random outpourings of creativity can be counted as expressions of consciousness at some level then they should qualify for the title art......because the observer, relying on their internal response is not necessarily able to attach artistic value.

Nature itself produces art and few would deny the evoked response, or dispute that random events may have artistic merit because of the effect they produce in the viewer (Mandelbrot, random geometrics, wave forms, and flow forms etc)
The terms good art/bad art has no meaning....unless applied to the degree of skill or expertise involved in evoking a reliable response in the intended viewer. Australian aboriginal art for example is incredibly complex and some view as beautiful.....but to a native aboriginal it is a road map of higher states of consciousness and an expression of their cosmology, whereas to another it is a series of colourful ochre spots on a big bit of bark......product of some antiquarian kindergarten.