When I was in art school (Painting and Printmaking-VCU) in the 70's, "reaction" was the buzz word and folks were doing all kinds of stuff to get a "reaction" which at the time semmed logical and entertaining. The only problem is that most of this stuff ain't around anymore. Some of it wasn't around 5 minutes after it happened. Well, it's not for me to judge whether or not it was art, but it is my opinion, that time becomes a factor in the determination of the quality of the work. This is the reason that fine artists (as opposed to musicans, actors, etc.) work in mediums that while not be permanent, strive toward permanency. The Dadaist movement of the early 20th century led by Duchant, who proclaimed that "art is shit", and the impressionists, were scorned by the old schoolers, just as the Op artist (Litzenstien, Johns, Pollack, et all) had to fight off the aging impressionist and cubists. Appreciation comes from seeing and feeling art and knowing some thing of the processes that went into the art, the history, the lives of the artists. This is one or two steps beyond reacting. One can look at a Van Eyke and not know that the painted jewels are actually constructed from the canvas out with successive glaze coats with very little pigment and actaully have relief and allow light to enter each on, as a jewel, and radiate toward the eye while picking up those flecks of pigment. Knowing that, makes ones experience of seeing the painting, appreciative long after the reaction has subsided.

Just the bobert's opinion...