Pseudo-intellectual Masturbation

The process of producing a piece of work which, while boasting little content, manages to dazzle the viewer with a seemingly impressive display of intellectual girth.

(Opinion) Art forms such as Dada (anti-art) are a form of Pseudo-Intellectual Masturbation. It is important to note that, if a work of art has little content or has been produced with little thought about the meaning, etc(the first sign of PIM), it is not neccessarily PIM! Art can also be meaningful, spiritual, whatever, by being aesthetically pleasing instead of having something important to say.
PMI can also occur in other fields: literature, home gardening, and even sometimes science. So, I have set up a few criteria for PIM-detection to be used daily.

1. The work must give a considerable amount of glorious credit to the author (if it's anonymous, it will not bring glory to the author. Therefore, it really can't be very masturbatory, eh?)
2. The work may not contain any insightful thinking, meaningful remarks, or thought-provoking ideas. (Who here understands what a door frame standing on its own in the middle of the room tries to convey to the viewer? The answer is simple: PIM)
3. The author must claim that the work has important value in the context that it is set in. I.e. if the author says its crap, then it is just published crap.
4. The work itself must be reminiscent of real, important, imaginative work. (Dada is crazy like most modern art, right?)
and..finally,
5. The work has been produced with little thought or effort.
Farewell, and good night.

Who here understands what a door frame standing on its own in the middle of the room tries to convey to the viewer?

Just because you see nothing in a work of art, that don't make it so, laddie.

I could go on for hours about all the possible interpretations of a doorframe in the middle of a room, starting with the conventional concept of surrealist distortion of context (a door's rightful place is surely at the edges of rooms, along the walls); through the more postmodern concept of challenging the viewer with art that can be viewed as well as experienced (one can look at the doorframe, but one can also walk through it); and finally ending up in the new-agie naughties, talk about the spiritual implications of doorways in general and seemingly useless doorways in particular.

I'm not going to invest the effort, however, because in my experience, self appointed "critics" of modern art are not satisified with anything less that a clear cut and unambiguous purpose to the work, which, I'm afraid, takes things out of the realm of art and into that of engineering.

A pice of PIM can be meaningful or aesthetic. The true criteria for PIM, and believe me I've seen lots of it, is based on the artist. It's the artist's intent and purpose in creating the art that defines PIM. If the message the artist wants to convey is "I am soooo smart/talented/avant-garde" then the piece can be considered PIM.

It's important to remember that, as TheLady said, a piece of PIM can be valuable, meaningful, and beautiful to any other observer. It's just unlikely that it will ever have any true value to the artist. An important part of the benefeit an artist receives in creating art is the process; a pseudo-intellectual corrupts this process with his/her desire to impress people.

The meaning of art comes partly from the artist and partly from the observer, in this case it's mostly from the observer...