I've always been a great fan of art. I often get into discussions about what "art" is, usually prompted by some exhibit that defies definition at one of the local art museums here in DFW. I've dabbled in art and have collected some local artists, mostly works that I like (or as some would say, "it spoke to me"), but there are times when I see an exhibit and have to wonder. My own line denoting art/not art is if I think anyone can do it, then I don't feel it's on the same par as other works.

For instance, at the Dallas Museum of Art (DMA) a few years ago they had an exhibit of more modern art. One installation was a pallet of bricks with one missing from the stack. The missing brick was painted white and sat on top of the stack. It was called something like, "Indifference" and cost them some large amount of money. Now while this is clever, I don't see how this could compare to a Matisse or Van Gogh. Now I'm not trying to convince anyone that such a display is not art, just that I don't think it rates very high for me.

But the question I had came to me while I was reading some articles about modern art shows. A number of the artists had multiple pieces that were listed as "Untitled" and I wondered, how do they distinguish between them? I mean if you're compiling  a catalogue raisonné for one of these artists then it would seem difficult to distinguish between the works if more than a few are "Untitled".