[andy58-in-nh]

Not everything created by an artist or displayed in a museum is "art". The idea that the right to both define what is art and who is an artist belongs only to artists is a recent historical development, occasioned by the collapse of objective standards of value long championed by Progressive ideologues.

Further, the notion that the proper function of artistic expression is to shock, disorient, and deconstruct rather than to ennoble, explain and elevate is a product not of artistic aspiration, but of political theory.

I am not a great fan of anyone destroying anyone else's personal property for any reason (aside from what occurs during war waged against an aggressor). But in this instance, it is at least arguable that the object in question contains little or no intrinsic value, and further constitutes the expression of nothing more than "fighting words" - an intentional insult with no deeper meaning or purpose than what is obvious to an objective viewer.

[mas cerveza por favor]

The idea that the right to both define what is art and who is an artist belongs only to artists is a recent historical development, occasioned by the collapse of objective standards of value long championed by Progressive ideologues.

That "right" does not extend to artists who defy political correctness. The supposed new standards are a employed solely for the attack upon traditional Western values.