2a.In other words, should a poorly executed painting of a meaningless object be classified under the category of a "major" work of art simply because it is falls under the "major" art forms category, while a sublimely prepared and artistically-presented sumptuous culinary masterpiece is held to evaluations as a "minor" art because "some" have classified it in the "minor" arts category.

I think the question you raise is one that we have all been circling around in class. Given your examples it really does not seem fair or just even, to place certain things in the categories that we have, but what if we were to maybe look at the other side of the coin. Should these patterns be placed in the same category of "major" as the painting ?











I know that decorative patterns are not the same as food but I only bring the comparison since its seem that in asking about what should or should not be considered minor or major we are also asking whether the two categories of art should actually be considered to be existing divisions. Korsmeyer places both food and decorative art in the same category of minor, it seems that if one is to consider the patterns above as art then the division seems to have some justification; the decorative patterns do not have the same aesthetic merits that the painting does. By placing two objects under the division, it does not make something have more meaning. Using Betty's example the meaningless art piece does not become better since this artist has chosen a "major" medium, bad art is still bad art, what the distinct seems to do it just limit the extent to which somethings can rise. It can seem to take a sort of negative tone, but under these distinction the patterns above or the food in the example still have a place in the art world, which under different circumstances may not exist.

Should these patterns be placed in the same category of "major" as the painting ?