[schmelvin]

Just because people are fascinated by things that repel them, and can't take their eyes off things that shock or awe them, that doesn't mean that what they're viewing is art.

I'm not going to try to define art; too many people have already tried it and failed. I do believe that art is an embellishment, an expressive vanity of sorts, that is done knowingly and through force of will. What I'm saying is that the artist has to deliberately set out to create art before his work can even begin to be considered art. I mean that in this sense:

You may drive by a mangled car on the side of the road and think you're seeing a work of art because you find it "visually stunning", but if the driver wrecked his car, because he slammed on his brakes to avoid hitting a deer, not because he wanted to provide you with an exhibit of his artistic genius, then you are not viewing art. And, if you think you are, then you are a sociopath, so detached from the reality of another's pain and suffering that you could see an up-close tragedy as something distant and surreal, and declare it a work of art.

You said: "Art is an expression of the human condition. Not an expression of moral values."

Using your definition, the basest pornography would fall under the heading of "art".

[ARCADIA]

What I'm saying is that the artist has to deliberately set out to create art before his work can even begin to be considered art.

Well the WTC attacks were deliberate. The targets were chosen for their visual appeal. Certainly NOT for military strategic reasons. In addition, many of what are now considered works of art were created with different intentions in mind.

Using your definition, the basest pornography would fall under the heading of "art".

Not really, most pornography has no artistic value. Not because of the subject or context, but because the execution is so shoddy.