Uen on Nostr: >bad reading comprehension You claimed that whether a thing is "art" is determined by ...

>bad reading comprehension

You claimed that whether a thing is "art" is determined by whether or not it's producer intended it to be art.

That claim is non-sensical, as it does not define what "art" is in the first place. "X is whatever I intend to be X" does not define X.

And besides, it's all subjectve:
Just as you claim that intent defines art/not art status, I can similarly claim that beauty defines art/not art status.