Do art really need to evoke emotion, then they only can be called "art"? Because it's certainly bug me that people keep saying that art has to have a meaning to be called art.
Nope. Sometimes art is just about aesthethics, form, colour, texture.
And that's ok.I don't buy it. Whoever created the piece of art decided that whatever his/her subject is, even if it's just a texture, is interesting. That's a value judgement right there. Not only that, but in presenting it to others, he/she declares "this is art," which means they are making a statement about what they consider art. Likewise anyone who puts out an executable and declares "this is a game" is giving an opinion on what games are or should be.
Yes but what he is talking about is
emotions. Nobody is denying that a statement is being made, i'm just pointing out that the focus sometimes may not be to evoke emotion but other things.