It seems that as the the modern world has made it easier to produce art, the average person's mind commonly turns art into some sort of demarcation problem. Mor

It seems that as the the modern world has made it easier to produce art, the average person's mind commonly turns art into some sort of demarcation problem. More people appear to struggle in differentiating art from pseudo-art. Perhaps they think of pseudo-art as a simple attempt to rake in money from collectors, pieces made only to fill space in corporate office parks, or work they could "get from any art student." They become wary, as in their mind they don't want to be conned by a pseudo-artist or amateur. Of course, that mindset assumes that pseudo-art exists or at the very least acquiring it is prevalent threat. One popular and respected local artist (now owner of several galleries bearing his name) once told me, "I have to finish one painting a day to support myself as an artist." Are those paintings pseudo-art because he intended to make profit off something he knew would sell? I struggle to think of people who know his work and wouldn't consider it "art" or him an "artist." Is the corporate sculpture fake simply because of where it's displayed or who contracted the artist? Just because the student's name isn't popular or their skills are still lacking refinement, should they be denied the ability to become a master? If they do manage to make that transformation and their early work becomes more valuable than ever, why only then is it not pseudo-art? Obviously, I'm not asking you to answer these questions or even acknowledge their relevance. It's just sort of a train of thought your comment kicked off.