This is literally wrong, but it is also literally right. Literally anything can be called anything because words are symbols and they can point to whatever the hell you want them to point to. Moreover, to make things even worse, in the universe that is interconnected, everything is a kind of everything else (which is to say, everything is related to everything else), meaning that, all concepts can be reduced to all other concepts, meaning that, strictly speaking, you ARE right. Everything is art, but also, which is something you didn’t mention, everything is everything else e.g. everything is woman just as everything is man just as everything is vacuum cleaner just as everything is forum and so on and so forth. I was trying to explain to some guy on some other forum a while ago about how women are vacuum cleaners, that is to say, how women can be used as vacuum cleaners (by forcing them to lick the dirt), but he didn’t believe me a word! Heraclitus and relationalism are too difficult for people (who are mostly platonists) to understand.
However – and this is a BIG however – just because everything is related to everything else does not mean that we can’t determine when something starts to be something and when it stops to be that something. It does not mean we can’t differentiate between things, it does not mean we can’t separate that which is art from that which is not art, it does not mean we can’t put things into their own categories (even though in reality everything belongs to every category.) It is a mistake to reach for such a conclusion for such a conclusion leads to nihilism, to inability to discriminate at all, to pure perception of flux (which is actually no perception at all.)
I’m pretty sure I’ve lost you by now, but don’t worry, I can say other things as well.
Basically, you are wrong: some things are art and some are not.
For example, my monitor is NOT art, though I can certainly try to use it as such.
The thing is that the word “art” denotes a function, and functions can be applied to any objects. If functions can be applied to any objects, then any object can be considered to be an object of any function. However, not all objects perform equally well at any given function, and it is precisely this that ends up determining which objects should be associated with which functions and which objects shouldn’t be associated with which functions.
Girls aren’t vacuum cleaners – they are terrible vacuum cleaners. Moreover, there are many other functions girls are far better at (e.g. giving birth to babies.)
My monitor performs terribly as a function of art and is pretty great as a function of monitor (which is why we call it monitor and not art.)
Function might be a wrong word. A more suitable word could be “a kind of becoming”.
Yes, but that does not mean that what they call art is really art. Not to insult, but reality is reality, and what you’re saying here is a pseudo-intellectual sort of thinking.
No, galaxies can never be art, unless you are connecting the stars in such a way so that they resemble various things that are not galaxies (but even in that case, that would be a really bad sort of art.)
Art is simulation. Galaxies aren’t simulations, though as I’ve said, you can use them as such. But if you do, they will be very WEAK simulations.
Simulation is an illusion, it is something that is happening merely inside of one’s head.
Simulation: that which appears to be something that it is not.
If you are staring at the stars, and seeing nothing but stars, that’s no simulation, that’s reality. However, as I’ve said earlier, if you’re seeing something other than stars, an illusion of some sort, then we’re speaking of artistic experience, which is, however, in all cases, very weak, and thus, not really an artistic experience.
There is a difference between a REAL galaxy and a galaxy painted on a canvas. A galaxy on a canvas is NOT a real galaxy, it’s a simulated galaxy – an illusion of galaxy (this is one of the reasons why architecture isn’t art.)