What Constitutes Art (reading blog 2 !!)

I believe that art in general is a non-strict construct. It is not a specific thing nor a sect of things, nor is it one tangible focus at all. Art is, in my eyes, a label we are capable of applying to nearly any extant concept, so long as we assume there is reasonable creative intention behind what is being considered art. John Cage's works, be they the infamous 4'33 or his memorable mesostics, are all art, despite not being visual images nor balanced musical pieces nor properly-arranged poems. Cage's literal creative intention in each and every piece he made is exactly what made them art, and thus such pieces are deserving of such a label due explicitly to the presence of that intention. 4'33 was both a measured analysis and critique of musical tangibility, and many of Cage's works were abstract pieces that very intentionally invoked thought as to what could be considered art. Even in the modern day, most depictions of art are inordinately expensive paintings and sculptures traded between millionaires or billionaires for the sake of showing off; and in many of these cases, the commentary and creative intent behind said pieces are overshadowed by the considerations levied towards them. Such modern concepts of art do not take into consideration intent nor the label applied to creations as a result. but rather consider incredibly limited, specific things "art". Many of John Cage's pieces, and many other pieces by other artists both at the time and in the modern day, seek to deconstruct these notions and further prove that art is an intention rather than a tangible creation, and I believe that the critiques leveled at Cage throughout the article only further accentuate just how important of a critique this is.