As to what defines art, yes, subjectivity absolutely. In fact subjectivity is a fascinating subject – I may have to ponder and write something about it.

So yes, this is me, starting somewhere!

Cheers.

The golden rule I always apply to a work of art is ‘does this move me in any way?’ If it turns out to be a purely intellectual response – “I’ve no idea what these pieces of wood are supposed to mean” – then for me, the work is no ‘better’ than a surreal ad for a bottle of perfume.

I can admire the work that has gone into a piece and the effort put in by the actors etc but I can admire a large building in the same way. I have long since accepted that all art is subjective and that the only criteria that can be applied to it is a) someone calls it art (usually the artist) and b) enough people agree with the artist to define the work as art.

As it happens, simply being in the theatre and watching the play gave me an idea – ‘Bettakultcha, the stage play’. So the possibilities of what can be done with the facilities available is always presented in any play, regardless of the quality of the content. So you are right, the phenomenon of art producing more art is a real one and you also have to start somewhere.