Artist gives birth to vaginal painting

[marions ghost]

120. Yes--it is art because enough somebodies agree it is

--so in order to have it labelled as "not art" you would have to wrestle a lot of people.

How many decide?--of course there's a lot of debate within the field. Actually it's extremely competitive at the higher levels and difficult to get the attention of the right promoters and supporters. Your theoretical "50-50" artist has a tough time. It's a horse race. (We're not talking about Sunday painters here--talking about art at a higher level of achievement). So the majority of visual art professionals and art supporters get to decide what visual art is. They are not always in consensus whatsoever but they do try to remain respectful of serious work in genres they don't care for. Keeping an open mind is necessary.

It's just like music or writing or movies. What the critics and producers and academics like--may not be what the public likes best. But that doesn't mean it's not art. And consider that often art is created that isn't widely appreciated for years. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. He was ridiculed. OTOH Thomas Kinkade's factory-made paintings made him a young zillionaire, only because he was able to convince unsuspecting people that it was good art...when it was primarily a feat of marketing prowess. Most authorities in art would call it mediocre to bad, and his marketing predatory.

On the plus side these days, there's really something for everybody under the huge label of art. So there's no need to fight against what you don't like. If you aren't interested enough to find out anything about whatever the genre is, OK. No harm done. Move on to what you do like. Maybe you like none of it. I'm not here to cajole anybody.

So IMO the general public DOES decide what is popular art, but the public does NOT decide what IS Art. I don't like to see otherwise intelligent (liberal) people arguing the lame old, "it's not Art" merely because they don't like it. Just say you don't like it. Or that you find it "narcissistic, obvious and boring." That's more specific.
-----------

As for violence, expressed in art. That's another topic. But you imagined it--so OK, I'll just say that as long as the violence is NOT REAL--(ie. movies, books, pictures) then it can be art. Because violence is part of our experience in this life. But if it is real, actual extreme violence (let's say--beyond boxing, which some consider to have crossed the line) --if the act of extreme non-consensual violence is labelled as art, that is where sane people draw the line. Because nobody but the sickest minds could defend that in a civilized society. I don't call that good or bad art--I call it psychotic behavior, found in fiction but not condoned in reality.

So I suppose this woman does take a risk that some psychotic might kick the scaffolding out, but she is in a relatively safe environment, and the act is temporary. Remember, it's temporary and you have to be going to this art expo to see it. She is brave to do it, I'll give you that. It might provoke anger from someone who objects to what they happen to see. But if I did that, I'd be waging war daily against the ugliness of things I see in this country and society. Most of us have better self-control. This artist is banking on people being at least accepting, or even bored, like you.

I hope this helps you and anyone else asking the same totally relevant questions.