Art vs artistic exercise

Strictly speaking, art is an evolving language. However, in general, what really happens is that art is a title that some works receive from critics and audience.
Artistic exercise is the act of making works using artistic language without a urge to push art to the next level, just as a means of expression. With the popularization of the expressive technologies, anyone can make artistic exercise without formal artistic background. There are millions of blogs, photos, movies, visual works, and there are several initiatives, like applications or even tools like Processing and OpenFrameworks that makes life easier for anyone who wants to express themselves.
If someone makes visuals for a comercial product, or uses artistic language unpretentiously just to express himself, many can label those work as art, but, actually, it's artistic exercise.
Before the age of technical reproducibility of artworks, art happened at the specific moment when people came into contact with physical (and authentic) artworks, and that could break the oppression of reality, providing new ways of seeing and moments of aesthetic pleasure, with beauty or horror. Those were exceptional moments in the life of those people.
Now, there are abundant works with aesthetic appeal popping up everywhere on TV, internet, games, movies, radio, and many others. Now, rare are the moments when people are fully disconnected from aesthetic experiences. That profusion of visuals, sounds, gestures and words are made both by professionals and by amateurs. That superabundance isn't a guarantee of awareness about artistic language and its evolution. I venture to say that the most of everything called art today is only artistic exercise.


Do you disagree? Leave a comment!