Art that fails to disrupt our complacency — to shake us up, to make us think, rethink, disagree, enrage — is nothing more than decoration. The artist is a visionary who can stare into the fires of life and see the incandescence that others miss.

In 1917, the Dadaist Marcel Duchamp, purchased a urinal, mounted it at 90 degrees from its intended purpose, titled "Fountain" and signed it "R. Mutt." Calling it a "readymade," he submitted it to an exhibition in New York City. The committee in charge refused to display it claiming among other things that since Duchamp had not physically made it, it could not be considered "art." Defended by Alfred Stieglitz and Beatrice Wood, among others, this seminal work redefined art. In 2004, "Fountain" was voted most influential artwork of the 20th century by a consortium of British artists.

Though the original was lost, Duchamp created eight replicas in 1964, one of which sold for $1.7 million in 1999. Even more ironic is the fact that at least three times in the last 20 years, different performance artists have entered museums where one of these replicas was on display and urinated into the "Fountain" — an act that each of these artists claimed Duchamp himself would have understood. And indeed he would. As for those who fail to appreciate it as art — piss off!

This is a brilliant piece. I am going to print it out and bring it into the other room and read it out loud to my computer illiterate husband who is…….an artist! (Well, of sorts: he's a Playwright. ) All the same issues and arguments apply, and I thank you for making me feel we are not so alone in the world.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Haven't you heard, "they're" taking the "n-word," (used some 9000 times), out of Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer…. That's right! Now, the "n-word" has been officially removed from the American lexicon… Whew! About time… I suppose this cracker can now re-read Mark Twain without being "offended" by that bigoted, gray haired, ole man….

I have come to believe that the new generation has no idea what criteria to use when evaluating art, what's art and what isn't. Of course, some might say that it's art if the artist says so, but we all know that's BS. I'm no connoisseur of art but it doesn't stop me from having an opinion. It seems that any type of "art" done for shock value (ie: the money coffins ) automatically gets elevated to some higher standard without regard to content, process, or intention. There's a whole generation which automatically buys into this as the definition of art – oooh, it's ground breaking, ooh they risked their lives by climbing on top of that building, ooh they avoided the law = they must be a great artist. Well…risk and your ability to run from the cops does not art make. So, I suppose we must ask ourselves at what point does protest become art? Certainly, we've seen great examples of protest art in the works of Banksy and other truly talented street artists. Perhaps that's where the skew began, as it usually does. One original, really talented artist puts out some truly great, innovative work, and then there are followers, copiers, hacks, all of them piggy-backing on the original. And it works sometimes, for a short period of time. (see the film "Exit Through the Gift Shop"). Now, I'm not condoning the destruction, vandalism, or defacing of private or public property (although we can't argue that certain surfaces are indeed enhanced and improved by the "art" they attract), so we need an outlet for the true artists who seem to only find their canvases among the metropolitan landscape which inevitably result in a different kind of artist wiping the canvas clean – we'll call him The Eraser (sounds like some working man's super hero, "fighting to keep our city clean!"). Where will these non-hacks find a place to display their art where it will still make the same impact, yet live on within a force field The Eraser can't penetrate? A place where viewing the potentially offensive/protest art is a choice and doesn't jump out at you and steal your eyes from the road as you're driving down North Central Ave as you subsequently slam into the Rolls-Royce in front of you, and he subsequently hits the lady pushing a baby in a stroller crossing the street, and that baby subsequently flies out and lands safely into the arms of a U.S. Marine on leave from Iraq. Hmmmm.

I've never found any attempt to "define" what art is satisfactory. If followed to its natural conclusion, someone somewhere will have the power to apply that definition and use it to "correct" the art, "imprison" the art, "destroy" the art. The problem, it seems to me, is that our definition of art ASSUMES we're talking about good art, not bad art. But as soon as we link "good" or "bad" with the definition of art, we've lost the whole idea of what art is. There will always be opinions and arguments and even rational discussion of a work of art, but as soon as said discussion involves the very definition of what art should be, then we are entering the realm of state control, by extension allowing for someone to decide what art is and isn't. I'm afraid we have to learn to live with the idea that "art is what the artist does." We can discuss it's value, it's effectiveness, it's aesthetic worth, etc., but we must take it on face value, since the artist herself said so, that it's art. Bad, good, indifferent, ineffective, offensive, pleasing, entertaining, validating, whatever, art can be all of those things. But it's art. We cannot declare that something an artist did is not ART. We can only judge it on it's terms. Our being troubled by what was done to that mural has to do, not with the fact that it was judged bad or good art, but that it was dealt with in the context of its presentation. And that offends us. Not the art, but that it was defaced because of whom it might offend. And we all have already discussed that point, so no need to go into it here. I'm comfortable saying, "Art is what the artist does." Any other but, but, but, involves the judgment of whether it's good or bad, which is fine, but the definition of what art is cannot involve some abstract criteria of what art is and isn't. Once we go there, it's a nail-strewn slippery slope into state control.

While sympathetic to Jack's non definition, I still love this one: “Literature is made anytime the legal apparatus is challenged by a conscience in touch with humanity.”

– Nelson Algren, Chicago City on the Make

It takes art/literature off the canvas and the page and the stage too.