I refuse to waste my time on anyone who defends Duchamp and Warhol (notice the spelling) or anyone who says "dialectical dialogue." Your poor education shows very clearly.

... they said, while wasting (in the true sense of the word, it would seem based on the quality of this comment) their time replying.

Maybe tone it down a bit and be nicer? Even if they have a poor education, why would you publicly shame them for it?

RobotCaleb, kindly explain: 1. Why are you admonishing me and not saying a word to the poster who said "check out the following books if you want to move past your misconceptions"? Why doesn't that come across as patronizing to you? 2. Why is art subjective but "the following books" are not? 3. Where did you get the idea that art is supposed to be inclusive? Kindergarten teachers routinely invited my mother to go there just to show her, "Look at the amazing drawings your son has been making AGAIN!" Do you think my kindergarten drawings should be blown up and plastered on publicly visible walls? Seriously, I want to know.

On point 3, well, yes. If your mother or teacher wanted to, and had the means and opportunity to do so. Whether or not you find artistic merit in those drawings has little bearing on the expression of pride that might drive your parent or teacher to publish that art. It doesn't have any bearing on the feelings that are evoked by the observer, whether it's your revulsion at your own productions, or the delight from normal folks when seeing displays of public art.

You said "Real art is deep, meaningful, timeless and doesn't need to be imposed."

Sand Mandalas are deeply meaningful, but completely timeless - most are created to be destroyed, often within days or hours of completion. Brueghel's Flatterers is a relatively crass, surface level, but lasting commentary on what we often refer to as Musk fanboys and such these days :P

Fundamentally, art is human expression, and your attempts to gatekeep that have fallen pretty flat so far.

Why does it matter if we call it art or not?

Because many people will refuse to call an art piece art in an effort to dismiss that work as valid. Not calling it art is a form of gatekeeping.

Thou art irony

I think your example of Duchamp is incorrect (and I’m an engineer not an arts graduate) Attempting to cast yourself. as knowledgeable and then using Duchamp without understanding his history shows lack of taste IMHO.

Duchamp stole his signature artwork from Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven:

  a 1917 letter Duchamp wrote to his sister, Susanne, translated: “One of my female friends who had adopted the masculine pseudonym Richard Mutt sent in a porcelain urinal as a sculpture.”
  R Mutt was identified as an artist living in Philadelphia, which is where she was living at the time. 
  Duchamp said he had purchased the urinal from JL Mott Ironworks Company, adapting Mutt from Mott, but the company did not manufacture the model in the photograph
  the handwriting on the urinal matches the handwriting Von Freytag-Loringhoven used for her poems.

I recommend you avoid presenting yourself as an expert on art : or at least try to become more knowledgeable. Second-hand information from experts is often misinformation. Of course: “great artists steal” just usually not quite so literally.

First: I never called myself an expert. I said I was an arts undergrad, there is a difference there.

Second, I never mentioned that urinal. I mentioned two artists that had intentionality and process tied to their work. Duchamp is not just that urinal, please check his other work and the movements he was associated with to learn a bit more about what mechanisms gives the art piece and aura of art. In my opinion, that understanding is quite essential to appreciate certain movements such as Dadaism.

Also, I never mentioned anything about "artists" and stealing.

All I did was name check two very well-known artists whose work is part of a larger artistic revolution, one that precipitated a discussion and a new understanding about "what is art".

I also offered some book references so that instead of accepting my opinion, the OP or anyone else can go read and form their own opinion. Because instead of being an expert, I gave references to the experts.

As usual, gotta trust an engineer to arrive full of opinions and misconceptions about a field that they're clearly not well versed and attempt to put someone down.

Duchamp and not Basquiat in this context is rather dubious to say the least.

I don't want a neo-Duchamp putting a port-a-potty in my neighborhood and spitefully calling it art.

Good lord, there is so much more to Duchamp than that urinal. Also, it misses then point of my comment in its entirety. It is about what intention is behind the work, not about the piece themself (a bit more complex than that but that is enough for a small comment).

I don't care what the intention behind ugly art is, because ugly art isn't something I want to see regardless of the intention.

well, as long as you understand that ugly is not an absolute and that what you find ugly might actually be awesome for someone else.

So what was the intent behind the Urinal?

Your choice to smush intent and Duchamp is weird.

What intent is in a stolen piece of work presented fraudulently throughout Duchamp's life as his own, and still widely treated as iconic and used as an example of a movement. What value the criticism built upon a lie? There is plenty of unintentional art in this story!