Does art in fact exist independently from humans?
Although we would all agree that we live in a material world, some would argue that in fact we all have our own subjective world, that exists only for us, and in fact we are its creators. While this could lead into a long debate, I would like to take from this the point that art, seems to be just such a notion that is man-created and exists only because and through humans. In fact it is a part of the material world, which by themselves need not to have any aesthetic or philosophic meaning, and it is only the man that gives them just such a meaning. However here, man’s impact could be seen as either one of a creator or of a spectator. Although material parts of our world that had not been created by man, can create aesthetic emotions, one cannot categorize them as art, since art by itself suggests the existence of a message behind it. Therefore man has to contribute as a creator to the work of art in order for it to be art. As for the spectator part, the question becomes as to whether something is a work of art if there is no man to appreciate it, to give it meaning. The trouble begins first when realizing that the creator is also a spectator, so the piece of art has already the meaning attributed to it by the creator/spectator.
However is that enough? Is something still a work of art, if everybody else in the world refuses to see it as such?