[MD] Art to me is....

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Matt]
That sentiment is essentially Harold Bloom's definition of the artistic 
process: artists respond to the art work with another piece of art work.

[Arlo]
I am not a fan of the label "artist", I don't know it's just so 
restrictive. I know you don't mean it that way, and I am not familiar 
with Bloom, but it implies an almost "profession" like bounding. What's 
he? Or he's a plumber. And what's she? Oh she's a programmer. What about 
him? Oh, he's an artist.

"Art" is what a plumber, programmer or painter or dancer or engineer or 
whatever DOES in response to experience. But I am responding not to you, 
but to the popular usage of "artist".

[Matt]
we shouldn't ever assume that someone is implying an ultimate reference 
point for their "meaning."

[Arlo]
I wasn't making any comment about anyone in particular, but I think this 
Platonic "ultimate reference" is really behind a lot of the 
non-philosophic talk about 'meaning'. When YOU ask that, okay I know you 
are coming from a different vantage, but the larger problem of SOM is 
that this "ultimate reference" is something a large amount of people not 
only do look for, but find it impossible to de-conceptualize. And 
'meaning' is a good meta-topic to engage that.

Heck, even IN philosophical discourse, looking specifically at 
'metaphor' one still hears the reducible/replaceable advocates arguing 
strongly. And since I've been reading on this heavily lately, its been 
on my mind. Sorry if you felt I was unfairly pointing to a particular 
person, I was speaking very generally.