Interpretation...is it valid critique?

[rayheinrich]

"You can't really share a painting with someone without actually painting it."
Of course you can.

" And the act is done in the physical world subject to such laws as
gravity (paint may drip and run), therefore art isn't only in your head."
Yes, the painting exists as a real object; your opinion that it is art is what
exists in your head.

"It's poses a non literal philosophical question"
Yes, metaphor can be extended.

"equivalent to such Abstractions as
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
Yes

"does a tree make a sound if no one hears it?"
Trick question as 'sound' has multiple definitions.
Physics: Yes
Perception: No

"Does art exist in nature?"
Art can exist anywhere, the only requirement is perception.

"If we are not observing the art does it crease to be art?"
The painting doesn't cease to be, your opinion that it is
art continues until you change your mind or forget it.

"Where does the Art actually occur?"
In your head.

"It cannot be proven, it's entirely figurative."
If you are implying that meaning is derived from metaphor, then yes.
The act of perception can be proven; it's the qualities (well, most
of them anyway) that can't

'All he is saying is "I can have a different opinion than you,
and you can't prove me wrong because my opinion is based
on my perception, not yours".'
Some opinions can be proved wrong (or right) and some can't.
He's talking about where art is created, not assigning logical values.

"Ergo, an artist must be objective,"
He's not requiring the artist to be anything.

"and understand and be aware of the physical limitations imposed
on the creation of his art, he must also be aware that there are
differences of opinion and different points of view regarding art,
he must use both sides of his brain."
Again, he's not requiring the artist to be anything.

"One must not forget that art requires a physical medium (even music requires sound),"
Art doesn't require a physical medium; it's a perception.
A painting requires a physical medium, perceiving it as art doesn't.
(We'll ignore brain cells at the moment, even though that's a big mistake.)

"and it should be supported in one way or another by logic.
If the logic is irrefutable all the better."
Logic is optional. Some artists like to play with it, some don't.

---

'One could say, "well art, like evil, is an abstraction, and a
man-made concept, it doesn't exist in nature, or outside of our minds".'
Yes.

"We have no proof of that either, we don't know if we invented it, or just named it, or whatever."
Yep, no proof. Perception doesn't require proof even though some parts
of it can be proved (and most can't).

"We call language and communication art,"
Some do, some don't.

"are dolphins artists?"
Yes.

"We have absolutely no proof that we aren't works of art ourselves,"
Of course we're works of art!

"that we weren't created by some other being that created a world full of
artistic entities to perpetuate his/her/their own artistic nature and glory."
Yes, so far there is no proof.

"Or an assassin bug squatting over us, shoving a proboscis right through
our breast plate then sipping-(dean young). "
Or my grandmother isn't a trolly car.

"In a way art is part of how we communicate, and seek to understand, explain,
and re-create the things around us, both far and near- it's bound to be influenced by the outside world."
Metaphor subsumes all that and more.

---

"Also, the argument only really pertains to the quality of the art."
The argument has nothing to do with quality. It's about where
it originates and what it is.

"If someone draws a stick figure it is art, whether or not it is "good" art is up for debate, "
A stick figure is a stick figure. We judge for ourselves it it's art and
how 'good' it is.

"Art is our immortality, it's how we remember from generation to generation."
Sometimes.

"Early art was almost entirely objective and may not have even included or required intent."
The object isn't the art. Taking the trouble to draw all that stuff definitely
required intent. Not that it wasn't fun, it probably was lots of fun.

---

maybe a stick figure is just a stick figure till someone sees it as art, the artist may just see it as a stick figure.

Perfect! All of the above comes down to this.
The stick figure is an object.
Art (or not art, or both) are created when we perceive it.

The view of a city through a window and a painting of view of a city
through a window can be confused for each other. There is
no inherent art in either of them. We're the ones who create the
art by perceiving it.