why would anyone continue to subscribe to the idea that triviality = bad, while broadening
the qualifications for things like aretistic merit? hence, the value of trivial things (i seem to
remember a mention a while ago of a found red mitten) have equal value as (for example)
desmoiselles d'avignon.

rather than broaden the good/bad dichotomy, many seek to broaden the definition of
whatever seems important. if "art" is important, claim all things are equally artistic and thus
equally important. (not that "art" is the only nebulous term, but a pretty ubiquitous one)
certainly the labels "computer art", "web art", "net art","digital" popularly obscure the real
things they refer to, such that no one agrees on any logical definition.

what's wrong with saying trivial is fine. despite the superlatives in marketing like movie ads
and artistic statements, most things are actually trivial. i like trivial things, i am lucky to have
a chance to make them. trivial things certainly don't have to equal malevolence, like hitting
somebody on the head. they also don't have to be phenominal Michaelangelo masterpieces
to be enjoyed. in fact, why would there be anything wrong with enjoying the trivial more
than the phenominal?

what's wrong with saying you can like a rothko, but not equate it with a monet? (with a
rothko, the artist is making their statement as a responce to an event, after the fact. with a
monet, the event is a responce to the artist. the statement, after the fact, is an unessential
addition to something else. a person could easily just say i like the statementy stuff, without
saying it has as much to offer, or arguing that a 4-year-old could NOT do that.

rather than argue 4-year olds make neat things, but of no great artistic merit. liking things
of no great artistic merit is fine. but the popular art argument is to say "if a 4-year-old can,
their works must be genius." (the unspoken way of saying, call everything equal, rather than
alloow mediocrity to be acceptable.)