Pick an epigraph, they all apply:
“The future came and went in the mildly discouraging way that futures do.” ― Author Neil Gaiman
“Anyone who isn’t embarrassed of who they were last year probably isn’t learning enough.” ― Social critic Alain de Botton
“Don’t spend time beating on a wall, hoping to transform it into a door.” ― Artist/entrepreneur Coco Chanel
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” ― Novelist William Faulkner
This image shows a sad reminiscence, not for what is lost, but for the sadness that persists. The anger is gone and is not missed; that’s a good thing. This scene is of what was once a suburban paradise where ignorance was bliss and at the same time a jungle where predators roamed. It was where the deluded fantasized joy, but did not do enough to make it reality, as well as where opportunists looked for weaknesses to exploit and succeeded.
Isn’t art at its core supposed to be an object (event, whatever) made by someone to incite a reaction out of someone else? And indirectly, as well—you are not supposed to touch art, it’s supposed to touch you. And even more, doesn’t it have to be useless other than other than the inciting-at-a-distance thing? Useful things can be art-ish, but they can never be ART art.
A problem with this definition is that it would include the BS that is fine art, as there is surely reactions to it They vary from revulsion to the sudden desire to throw away money—looking at you, Jeff Koons.
But this definition would exclude the consumer electronics user interfaces of Dieter Rams and all the movie posters and adverts ever made. As well as my stuff. I get no reaction from others from my work, even though it is art-ish i.e. paint smeared on canvas that could be framed and nailed to a wall. But it is not quite ART art, it being more therapeutic than marketable.
The definition needs some work, to exclude mere impresario-entrepreneurs—opportunists who found for weaknesses to exploit—and include more useful or unsung practitioners. So back to the drawing board I go.