Then what divides art from not-art? Is there even a difference?
> Art can be bad
Then why do people look at it? Are you saying they can't distinguish good art from bad?
Isn't at least one of the purposes of an art gallery to exhibit good art and not bad? If not, what is an art gallery for?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 it was made in 1917. If it was bad art as you imply, it's been over a century and no-one's officially dismissed it as bad (or is it described officially as bad art?). What does that say.
"Fountain was not rejected by the committee, since Society rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee" - ah,. so money changing hands was a requirement for it to be treated as art.
"The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde as a major landmark in 20th-century art."
Apparently it's good art then. I guess. AFAICT. Who can say?
It's like nobody's even thinking about this, just "it's art so it's art", whereas "am I being suckered" doesn't come into it.
Yes it is art. There is no barrier to turning into something into art. You don't need to go to a government office and license your work as art. You don't need to go to an established committee of artists to approve your work as art. Art can be bad, otherwise good art couldn't exist. Every good artist started out as a bad artist. People started to think all art must be good because that's the only form of art they see and the only way to counteract that is by showing them bad or ugly art.