What constitutes art? Which are the intrinsic qualities in a work of art? It is not my intention to give an answer, just a hint (which - off course - reflects my own personal standpoint, but then humans as well as the arts are very subjective): art constitutes itself, not through qualities like the artist's skill or through a will of the artist to come closer to the people, make them "understand" art works, mix up art with a posteriori sciences, oh no, even if some so called artists likes to think that it is the answer to my questions (and it's often the same artists that tries to explain everything they create - in some way or another - which makes their approach to art even more silly).

Art is art because it is art, someone in the art world has made a statement that it is art and some of the other agents has recognized it as art. No one outside the art world can decide what is art and what isn't.

No one can tell if a work of art is good or bad, if someone does he/she is for sure either a verbalist, a hypocrite, or just another poor looser who wants to impress on the nubiles. Not even the agents in the art world can tell; the only thing they can do is decide if it's art or not. Was Rembrandt a better painter than Victor Brauner? Was Joseph Beuys' performances closer to art than Frank Wedekind's? Are the paintings by Soutine art and the pseudo-pornographic photographs by Richard Kern not? I don't think so!!!

In the contemporary art you 'll find new and for art very strange tendencies; the romantic idea of the artists autonomy, his subjectivity and his right to embody the metaphysical isn't in fashion any longer, instead the artist has turned into a strange kind of scientist whose aims are to explain different kinds of scientific experiments in an "artistic" way , there is no room for a totally subjective mind, the work of art is intended to be understood - at least in some sense - by everyone. We'll find a big paradox here, the artist wants to be a scientist, OK, he'll do some kinda research, but there will be no conclusions (in all sciences,even philosophy, the aim is to find a conclusion), it's up to the artworks receivers to find the answers to the artists questions, and as a questioner the artist are back in the old romantic swamp again, unable to defend his oeuvre. And at the same time as he wants to be an scientist the artist wanna be the romantic artist, 'cause if he wasn't there would be no raison d'être for him, he would be as useless as a rusty razorblade. Still he wants to declare that he's something very special, because he is an artist. Gee, it's so boring! I just wanna cry out loud! Help!!!