Recently (i.e. particularly this term), I've come into contact more and more with the pervasive view of the modern artist and art viewer that art is entirely subjective. That there is no definition to art and that we cannot define it because it is different for everyone. I would argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that art is not. Since originally art meant skill (from Latin) I think it is interesting to see often times in today's art world skill is not necessary to create art (anyone remember someone signing a urinal?). Beauty can be in all corners of creation and simply requires a mindset to appreciate it, but in order for something to transcend to the realm of art it should require the careful and laborious process of utilizing carefully cultivated skill. The best example I can think of would be Picasso, in that early in his career he clearly had the technical skill to mimic life as it appears and that later he implements that in order to distort and create a different message. Often times it seems to me contemporary artists cheapen art by using the excuse of breaking with the past to excuse their lack of skill in execution. If I am to consider myself an artist and gain credit for working hard to become so, I really would rather not share the title with someone who has spent no time culitivating their skill. I am very curious to see if anyone feels the same or to hear a rebuttal from all those who fervently disagree with me (I know theres a lot of you!). Perhaps by instigating the debate I can further delve into the depths of this issue with all of you. Thanks for listening to me rant.