Can Anything Be Art?

Can anything be art? Are there limits to what is acceptable? Who decides? Can anything be art? Are there limits to what is acceptable and who decides? These three questions are probably the most argued and discussed questions artists, collectors and art historians are faced with on a day to day basses. The evidence of humans trying to create art has been present since millions of years. Archeologists have found traces of attempts of art in african caves which are up to 2.4 million years old. Creations of art can also be seen in the animal world where animals try to communicate through art. Chimpanzees are a good example of this who are most frequently observed by scientist trying to express their thoughts through some kind of form of art. When someone says “art” to you, we generally put this term in to context with a painting or a sculpture, but then mathematicians will argue that specific formulas are also a form of art. Art can be expressed and explained in hundreds of ways and different people will have different views towards different pieces according to their culture and background, though when it comes to the so called “main-stream art”, judgment unfortunately falls only into a very select number of people.
“anything can be art.” Most anyone involved or interested in art has heard someone make this statement. But is it true? If this statement is true, then anyone can be an artist simply by declaring him/herself to be one. If that is the case, then the concept of being an "artist" becomes meaningless. The term “anything” makes it seem like we can consider a butterfly art of even electric toothbrush art. The butterfly is a creation of good and in our eyes something preety and a toothbrush might not come over at first glance as art, but it to was designed and the creator put some kind of emotional passion or thought into it. This is why art could be anything. As things stand right now in the art world, there is basically no consensus as to what is good or bad art, or even to what art actually is. I find it to be frustrating, maddening, and exciting, all at the same time. “nothing is forbidden, everything is permitted.” --hassan-i-sabbah

Just as we accept laws put in place by our governments to protect society, we must accept limits on what can rightfully be permitted as “artistic expression”. When art become dangerous, unpleasant or offensive we must step in to make sure that anyone who could come to harm, if they where to see it doesn’t get access. An artist might believe that he is creating are with child pornography, but when it reaches that step we must restrict our selfs to what is morally right and wrong. Another route of art is shock-art. These are paintings and sculptures constructed from blood, shit, semen and dead-animals. Art historians will no doubt argue that this work has immense value in perhaps reflecting the post-modern creative world which we live in. What is acceptable and what is that limit. Is it not maybe that because, there are limits, and because these works push boundaries and do exactly the opposite to what we think for right that they are so successful? The limits that we have created for artists have created a new era of art. The artists are literally playing with fire, in trying to puss the boundary of acceptance by society a bit further with every piece of art they create. In this sense we can conclude that the artist is communicating with its audience through their art in order to push that acceptance level further and further out. A good example of this can also be found in theater. For instance shock comedy is only so successful because comedians like jimmy carr and frankie boyle are touching the nerve of acceptance all the times, they have taken the rules we have established and have twisted them around so that they haven’t broken them completely but have cracked them.
Unfortunately in the area of art decision on what is good and what is bad is made by only a small number of people. These are generally rich and successful art collectors or men and women who are in charge of great art forums and galleries. These are the people that decide at the end of the day what gets showed in the galleries and what doesn’t. This i though believe is wrong because it should be the individuals choice if he likes it or not, because of this structure that someone in a higher position get to say what art is and what it is not, many people get influenced by this and don’t open there selves up to new types of art.