system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that a lot of forms of abstract art are pointless and shouldn't be funded in museums with tax dollars. CMV

You can look at some paintings like the Mona Lisa, or Starry Night, and say "those are beautiful works of art".  I agree, however, that beauty is subjective.  But, there comes a time when you cross a line, especially when federal money pays for their upkeep.  I've heard of a man who took photographs of flaccid penises, and then blew them up to cover entire walls.  This apparently was supported financially by the National Endowment of the Arts.  There have been other things considered "art", such as a couple dots on a canvas, poop in cans, and gallon milk jugs tied together.  

While some people may be able to find meaning in these things, I have a problem when federal money is used to support it.  Why should my tax dollars go towards funding some of these things?  CMV!
gpt
I guess the real question is why *any* of it should be considered art.  If someone came up to you and said exactly what you've just said, but about the Mona Lisa, what possible rebuttal would you have that would convince him it was "actually" art?