[Claudius]

Ok so you believe that art is something recognized and described within academia. That is what I disagree with and what my ivory tower comment referenced.

I am not entirely swayed by what the art critic community thinks about art. Sure I listen to them with interest when I get a chance. I like to hear about their oppinion.

But the buck stops with me. What do I think? So if academia recognizes the mona lisa as great art I certainly listen to them. Of course. But in cases where the opinion of antiquity (or novelty) does not agree with my own discernment then I have to make up my own mind.

And due to my influences in studying Buddhism I believe that art as a social convention is stamped by the 3 marks of conditioned existence: impermanent, non-self, and unsatisfactory (merely labeled - cannot be grasped). Art as an expression of buddha nature is a different story but in that case we are sort of borrowing the word art from its social context - shoplifting it. The reason we would borrow the word is simply because it is a stirring word...we might have experiences in our own life producing art. Just as the word heart or clarity might be relevant to buddha nature although it also has a conventional meaning.

So why is my views on art/buddhism relevant to you? Because buddhism is a response to the same world. A buddhists same observation can be communicated to a non-buddhist they simply have to learn eachothers language. Its all about examining direct experience rather than getting caught up in appearances.