As another reader commented at the bottom of the article, he's hardly fooled anyone if the painting sold for the price of his art supplies.

This just demonstrates that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.


And I swear I see a footprint in the sunset painting. Look at the child's hands! My mother would have made me scrub myself on the porch for a month of Sundays had I ever turned myself into a rainbow!

I'm not an art connoisseur or expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I've always wondered how a random multicolor smear on a canvass could constitute "art."

My thought is that if his parents can get money for that, more power to them. They could have a real future in real estate.

I don't think what he was paid is especially important. It's the fact that he's been asked to exhibit at galleries that demonstrates the random nature of what "experts" consider fine art.

This is precisely what the Dadaist movement did. Marcel Duchamp's urinal accomplished essentially the same feat, but long before Freddie.

Why isn't this art?

Art is whatever is considered art. If you put a bunch of jello in an art gallery, people would consider it art. Its all context.

As for the boy's work, it is art. He has no training but that doesn't change the fact that it is a creation. Besides, the stuff the kid did can be ascetically pleasing. Something, people would be willing to pay for.

Excellent point, Unzer. Why isn't this art?

Are there qualifications that the artist must meet in order for his/her work to be considered art? Is the boy not still expressing himself through choice in colors and design? What has disqualified his works from making a place in the art world?

Hence why artists are generally poor.


With today's standards, art only appears at random and high art is now based on a few people's whims. i.e. the greater the number of people who 'get it', the less it can be considered high art. However, even animals and random natural phenomena can create it. We have nearly defined art into oblivion.

I've always held the notion that something is art if it provokes an emotional response (either positive or negative) in the person experiencing it.

8 responses here say it provoked at least some reaction.


Now whether it's good art or bad art is a whole other matter.

A friend of mine that goes to an art school tells me the trick to understanding art is to just remind yourself "but you didn't"

Example 1: I could take a neon light, set it at 45deg on a wall! But you didn't!

Example 2: I could paint a can of Campbell's soup! But you didn't!

However the way I define art (solely unto myself) is that if the exposition of the art is required to actually understand or even appreciate the piece then I'm not interested. Be honest. You just painted some green circles on a canvas with a little splatter paint cause you were bored and uninspired. That's fine! I respond well to honesty.

I'm paying for a picture, then I want a picture. If I want a story then I'll buy a book.

Oh, goodie! Yippeee! I love debating this!

Okay, what I really meant to say is this:
The definition of art is not what matters. If one chose to define a sunset as a work of art, that is their prerogative.

Where it gets sticky is the question of art dealing wherein value is assigned to various works. I think it is useful to make an analogy to economists here: art dealers and critics are about as accurate. What both do is part art, part science, and part pure opinion. If people weren't so intimidated by their snobbiness (and the amounts of money they control), no one would care.

So, in conclusion, hang what you like on your wall and don't worry about the rest.