I don't fully understand this line of thinking but it goes something like this. If you want acceptance into the Art Critics "inner circle" you have to be university educated with a degree in art.

None of this self taught nonsense, you must be educated before we will accept you as an "Artist".

Funny I thought artists were born and not made? Or have I been lead to believe a lie? Which brings us to the question of todays post, "What is Art?" anyway.

Is art something that comes from within and has an extraordinary plethora of expressions, from drawing and painting to installations? Is it something that "needs" to be expressed for the benefit of others?

The answer is art is art in different ways to different people. In its simplest form, art is any mark made on a piece of paper that gives expression to the human experience. If the art is Successful people get what you mean. If it is mysterious and open to interpretation then this is also successful if this was the intent. But what if the artist creates something that is interpreted in a completely different manner for which it was created?

Doesn't that then add another dimension to what art is or can be? Which then if it be so completely wipes the smug off the faces of the art Critics who assume they can determine who and what is art by looking at someone's educational history.

So the next time someone puts you down for not being a formerly trained artist or "self taught" remind them of these simple points:

* Art is for all

* Anyone can create art

* Anyone can be an artist

If they who hold the keys to the inner circle of success are to keep you out, then watch them stop you promoting yourself on youtube or on your own blog. Success in your art will be determined by the number of votes given you by the general public who afterall are the recipients of our intentions.