Alleged Art and the Supreme Court.

 I am still thinking of the related issues of that insane SCOTUS case, involving the bigoted, alleged artist. Who only is a web designer. And with my arty farty degree? And my experience with wysiwyg and more labor intensive web design experience? I have no problem saying that ain't art, she ain't no artist.

I got to thinking about the critical, literally, question. When does mere craft become art? My mind got to the idea that when something is basically a functional thing? It's not really art, even if "design" is part of the process. Case in point. A draftsman's blue print.

I was thinking that, ya know? And I literally saw an exhibit at the Guggenheim of school kid's art over the last year. And that clearly was all art. It was expression. It was art made for no better reason than the making of art. Pure art!

But that lady's web designs? Thought occurred to me was I could whip up an exhibit incorporating her web designs, in a multi media, video and light display that would be more obviously art, than her workaday, practical, commercial output.

I got around to googling the question. This is a fine answer.

But before I did that, my mind produced another observation.

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court deciding what is or isn't art? How many ways can that go wrong?