Why are there people who think they can decide on what is or isn’t art? David Lister says this is specifically the case with visual art. He  has never heart anybody say: This isn’t theatre or this isn’t a film.

Because of the opening of  a retrospective on Damien Hirst  in the Tate Modern,  this discussion has again started. Lister states : “Art is in the eye of the beholder”. It can be any kind of visual form that alters your feelings which is to him the only criteria to define art. This is why he asks the art police to step down.

I agree with David Lister when he gives his definition of art, however this can also mean that the majority of people will decide on what is or isn’t art. Only artists that sell will be able to make a career and what is or isn’t going to be in musea. In our modern society we want to give young artists the opportunity to experiment and challenge us.

Unlike David Lister I think the same discussion is going on about theatre and literature. What art forms deserve extra financial support and who decides on that?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-/art/news/david-lister-ive-had-eough-of-the-critics-who-insist-on-telling-the-world-what-is-and-isnt-art-7624762.html