It seems that as the the modern world has made it easier to produce art, the average person&#x27;s mind commonly turns art into some sort of demarcation problem. More people appear to struggle in differentiating art from pseudo-art.<p>Perhaps they think of pseudo-art as a simple attempt to rake in money from collectors, pieces made only to fill space in corporate office parks, or work they could &quot;get from any art student.&quot; They become wary, as in their mind they don&#x27;t want to be conned by a pseudo-artist or amateur.<p>Of course, that mindset assumes that pseudo-art exists or at the very least acquiring it is prevalent threat.<p>One popular and respected local artist (now owner of several galleries bearing his name) once told me, &quot;I have to finish one painting a day to support myself as an artist.&quot; Are those paintings pseudo-art because he intended to make profit off something he knew would sell?  I struggle to think of people who know his work and wouldn&#x27;t consider it &quot;art&quot; or him an &quot;artist.&quot;<p>Is the corporate sculpture fake simply because of where it&#x27;s displayed or who contracted the artist?<p>Just because the student&#x27;s name isn&#x27;t popular or their skills are still lacking refinement, should they be denied the ability to become a master? If they do manage to make that transformation and their early work becomes more valuable than ever, why only then is it not pseudo-art?<p>Obviously, I&#x27;m not asking you to answer these questions or even acknowledge their relevance. It&#x27;s just sort of a train of thought your comment kicked off.