Beauty is, not art... and the video explains that when beauty was rare, art was about beauty but when everyone has access to beauty, art becomes about rare emotions, rare skill and rare ugliness. Inspiration is a feeling; if you feel inspired art has moved you. I could hardly be inspired by a wall unit of items that I had no connection to.art is largely in the eye of the beholder
mk didn't even say anything about beauty, he stated that art is mostly a subjective experience. Ignoring this, you might do well to avoid talking about something as contentious as 'what is art?' so absolutely. Even if we agree that art is no longer about beauty but instead the qualities you mentioned, they are all still subjective. A piece might make me feel a 'rare emotion' whilst to you it communicated nothing. What is it then? Whilst not specifically art, I experienced an example of this duality yesterday. On the way home from the shop I passed a bit of blood orange on the floor. Now to most this would probably be seen as litter, surely nothing of meaning. But for me it brought back a memory of when an old friend from university and I dropped a blood orange from the top of stairwell and it caused a terrible mess. I had completely forgotten about this. I felt nostalgia, amusement, and happiness. So what is one person's litter may be another's catalyst for an emotional experience. Furthermore, what even constitutes as rare in regard to these things? I may feel happiness regularly but someone suffering from depression may rarely, if ever, experience it. You may be involved in large circle of highly skilled practitioners whilst I may have no inner benchmark of what 'rare skill' is. What is rare ugliness to one person may be an everyday occurrence for another. There is no objective marker of these things and one cannot talk absolutely, or for everyone, about what they are and are not. As a result, as mk said,"art is largely in the eye of the beholder." One person cannot definitively say what is art and what is not.