>IMO, it is okay to call something that is aesthetically appealing for
>its own sake art. You're trying to make a pretty thing. It's art. It
>doesn't have to have meaning to be art. It just has to evoke a
>response in the viewer, which this does. (Even if the response is "oh,
>that's neat/pretty/a terrible waste of chemical supplies/a shameful
>commentary on what passes for modern art in Britain").
>
>I wouldn't mind seeing Banksy tag one, though.

IMO, the best description of Art isn't the work itself, but the frame by which we discuss the work. A painting isn't Art, Art happens when you look at a painting and think about it.

So by that definition, yes there is art in the blue room, as evidenced by this thread.

--
-Pasha
"Don't change the subject"
"Too slow, already did."