What is Art? Are We art? Is Art Art?

I saw lots of interesting paintings at the Rittenhouse Square art show yesterday. Not that I really think I have a great eye for artistic appreciation, but certain paintings could even have been said to move me. This, combined with the recent discussion about Belle and Sebastian (and about how much we appreciate works because they are "derivative" or "original"), I have a few questions about what it means to appreciate certain works.

The problem struck me when I saw a painting that was highly reminiscent of what I had been taught was impressionist art. Later, at another display, I saw a painting that was almost an exact replica of one of Claude Monet's "Japenese Footbridge" paintings. I liked it, even though it wasn't by Monet.

So that got me thinking about how there are some pieces of art -- and musical works -- that offer nothing new, in the sense of technical or creative innovation from what came before it, but that can still move us. On its own, the work may be great. But I'm convinced that context does matter.

Should knowing any art history affect our appreciation of that fake Monet work? I think the obvious answer to this question is yes.

Does it matter who comes up with the bulk of technique we value in a work? If this new impressionist whose work I saw yesterday changed a tiny bit of what he or she saw in Monet and then called the whole work his own, should and do we still value it? And to bring it back to the Mongrel's main topic, how do we react to a Belle and Sebastian song that largely sounds like it was ripped off Love or the Zombies? And does that make us appreciate Belle and Sebastian, as a band, less than if we hadn't known about Love or the Zombies? If it does, does that devaluation in turn translate to the music itself? Even though the music is essentially the same thing as that Love or Zombies song that moved us?