Here are the Cliff Notes. A dog trainer in Maryland came up with a clever way to make money. She trained her pooches to pick up a paint brush with their teeth and slap some paint on a canvas. After the dogs have sufficiently made a mess on the canvas, the trainer puts a frame on it, calls it abstract art, and sells it.
Turns out it was a brilliant fundraising scheme. She managed to sell one of the "paintings" for $350. Go figure.
Aside from the fact that I am jealous that I did not think of such a great moneymaking idea, it raises an interesting and serious question about what constitutes art.
There ought to be an objective standard for calling something art, right? Or, do you think I am barking up the wrong tree?