In his essay, Richard Taruskin defines the poietic fallacy as, “the conviction that what matters most (or more strongly yet, that all that matters) in a work of art is the making of it, the maker’s input,” (10). Taruskin used this idea in exploring modern art, but the concept is certainly interesting in a different discussion of the definition of art. Here Taruskin asserts that all that matters in art is the maker and the effort he puts forth in his creation. In claiming this, however, art is then defined as a solely individual form of expression measured by effort. If art can be measured by effort, then time and money are also relevant. Who is to say whether someone who spent five years versus five minutes on a painting should be afforded more recognition? The person who spent five years certainly put more effort into the painting, but in no way does this equate a higher level of artistry. In addition, art is something that is created and shared. Something is only considered art if it is subject to criticisms and discussion. If the most important aspect of art is the maker’s input, little value is placed on sharing the creation. Specifically in this essay, however, Taruskin describes the poietic fallacy and its relevancy to the composition of music. Indisputably, composition is highly dependent on the composer, but Taruskin poses that the composer is necessary for the progression of music as a whole. There is truth to this statement, but it is void of the audience or listeners. In claiming the composer is above all, the listener has little importance. I question, however, what is art without an audience? Art is the exchange of ideas. The interaction between the audience and the artist is necessary for the progression of art. This is not to say that art cannot be created individually, but the input of the audience is what makes it relevant and special.