By whose authority can these conceptions be labelled as misconceptions? If art is neither beautiful nor crafted or good in any way, and also has no meaning, it can be argued that it also has no intrinsic value.
In that case it is merely an object that is meant to inspire pompous rambling, but so can any object if put on display for the right observers, like in an art exhibit.
All 3 can be violated and art can still have value.
Playful art might not have any meaning (and surely not any "deep meaning") but still be totally enjoyable (e.g. Louie Louie in rock terms).
Badly done/naive art might be perfectly meaningful and touching on the other hand.
Not beautiful looking art can also be very meaningful and touching. We don't just enjoy beauty, we can appreciate e.g. a terrible picture from a war even if it's not beautiful.
If it doesn't have any of those attributes? Beautiful, well crafted, meaningful? Well, it can still be perfectly enjoyable. There's no deep meaning in Japan Noise Rock, it doesn't take much craft, and it's certainly not what people would call beautiful to listen to.
But it can still be very touching, therapeutic even.
There are probably a lot of people here who like Recreational Math: stuff like finding pairs of Amicable numbers. This seems to me like it's only beautiful or meaningful in a similar way to contemporary art, but it's still intrinsically valuable, even though I don't understand most of it.
As another example, if you look through the Guinness Book of World Records, you'll find tons of stuff that isn't "good" but still seems valuable. It's not "good" to have five-foot long fingernails, but I'm still glad that the world has someone in it who does, because it makes it a more varied and interesting place to live.
Art can certainly be ugly, produced entirely without technical skill and be labelled 'bad'. It's still art. Value doesn't come from only positive attributes.
Likewise it can have no meaning, or none intended, or none available to you. It's still art.
We often try and apply objective measurability towards the 'artness' of a thing, which takes us in self-referential circles of decreasing usefulness. When instead we need to let go and accept subjective immeasurability. The only number that can be put on art is its sale value which most will agree is a highly misleading metric by which to understand art's value.
By whose authority can they be labelled as true?
> If art is neither beautiful nor crafted or good in any way, and also has no meaning, it can be argued that it also has no intrinsic value.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value in anything, least of all art.
> In that case it is merely an object that is meant to inspire pompous rambling, but so can any object if put on display for the right observers, like in an art exhibit.
Really any object? Or would some objects work better than others? Why? Does it depend on the audience?
These are actually exactly the questions that postmodern art explores.
I believe many artists want to create work that enriches people's lives and they disappear from society (or the art world) in order to limit their exposure to pompous rambling.