I suppose the reason I put “beautiful” in my definition is because there are things that are literally trash that people are calling art because they supposedly “send a message” or something like that. The same is true of random splatters of paint. The “artists” who make such things say that “It’s not about what it looks like, it’s about what it represents…” The problem is, if you can’t immediately see what it represents, it’s obviously bad art, or even not art at all.
However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as this. I can tell by looking at it that it is clearly art. But why? What makes it different from a random splatter of paint? How much creativity was put into this? It looks like an average doodle (granted, it’s a rather impressive average doodle). Did they have a specific look they were going for? Did they continually refine it until it was satisfactory? Or did they hook a few nodes together and render it? I know that it is art, so if the latter is true, I will have to revise my definition.
