> But if he would never consider such a thing for himself, if it's only part of a show he puts on for others in hopes of getting paid ("it speaks to the inhuman

> But if he would never consider such a thing for himself, if it's only part of a show he puts on for others in hopes of getting paid ("it speaks to the inhumanity of corporate greed...blah, blah" he explains greedily), You seem to be referring to Marcel Duchamp's Fountain (the urinal) and if so you are missing the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp > Take a toilet nailed to the wall. If the person who created this thing would have done so if he had known that no one else would ever see it, if he would have nailed the toilet to his own wall at home knowing that he was the only one who would ever see it just because HE HIMSELF wanted to look at it, then it really is art to him. It's not any art that I'm interested in, but that doesn't matter. All art is subjective. It is a genuine expression of his own esthetic desires. It IS art to him. Art is a statement and you can't isolate that statement in a vacuum that would cut it from its historical perspective. > Nothing is objectively art; art is always in the eye of the beholder, but it's only real art to someone if they would want it even if no one else ever saw it. Of course, but the context around the piece of art is indeed objective.