"There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists."   E.H. Gombrich (The Story of Art)

A painting, a sculpture, a drawing, a watercolour, a photograph, a collage, a way of seeing such creations is as objects: objects that hang on a wall, stand on a plinth, are uncoveredin an artist's portfolio, grace a political or advertising poster, illustrate an article in a magazine or newspaper... However, when we visit a gallery for instance, more often than not, such an institution presents these 'objects' as works of Art.. thereby according them the status that comes with labelling them Art. And we collude with such galleries as we tend to expect that is what we are going to see when we visit such exhibitions... works of Art.

So what was Gombrich saying? He goes on to state: "There is no harm in calling all these activities (painting, sculpting, etc) art, as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean many different things in different times and places, and as long as we realise that Art with a capital A has no existence".

Because what Gombrich feels is that, calling something a work of Art confuses those looking at it by giving the onlooker a preconception that can distort his or her response to, and perception of, that work. I believe this has become especially true in today's world where we have become obsessed with the monetary value of a work of art and, in many cases, are encourage to determine a work's quality or significance according to how much someone haspaid for it.

Maybe we should just ask: Do I like what I see? Do I admire it for the composition, the skill, the daring, the way it makes me look at the world anew? Do I want it in my house because I will enjoy looking at it day after day?

And not care whether we or someone else has labelled it ART?