I understand that it is too difficult to try to make an "OFFICIAL DEFINITION" of the term "art" here, but my own concept is so vague that I want to discuss the subject so as to gain clarity. I often find that talking through a subject helps to clarify it. Does that make sense?

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that art itself is subjective. Not to just shoot down your idea, but this doesn't quite make sense to me. You seem to be suggesting that if I call something art, it is art for me; but it may not be art for you. I have trouble rapping my mind around this concept. It seems to me, if I may propose an oppinion, that art is a set (or category) of things. Paintings, drawings, statues, etc, are all things we generally accept as art. But surely not every object can be included in this set.

So, I understand your idea, but I can't comprehend the concept itself. Could you please try to clarify it for me? What do you think of my idea; does it seem legitimate?

Max Butcher described it perfectly.

Youtube Channel Flickr #LoveWins

Max Butcher is correct.

the "Song' "4:33" by Jon Cage is a recording of the "Artist" sitting at a piano for the length of time in the piece and not playing a note, and the ambient sounds are the piece of art (people coughing, etc.)  That is considered art/ classical music

Also, I dare you to listen to the 7-minute classical piece, "It's Gonna Rain" by Steve Reich (1966).  Listen with headphones, then without, for two different experiences.  I'm considering using this work in "Holding Our Own" Episode 6.

Adolf Hitler considered anything visual that wasn't realsim "Bad Art" and had a department that banned/burned it all.

I greatly dislike people saying that bad art is not art.  It's not that it isn't art, it's just that it's art that's really bad.

I consider art to be just about anything that someone makes creatively.  Not all art has to be emotional or send a message, or have some sort of meaning, sometimes someone can just make art because it looks nice, and sometimes people just make art because they feel like doing it.

Even something as simple as a small joke is art.  of course, it's not quite as impressive as something like a large detailed painting, but it still requires some sort of creativity.  I often times feel clever about myself for creating a joke much in the way that I feel after creating something much bigger like a video, however, this feeling is much less substantial since a joke is much easier to create and requires little effort.

I get a little annoyed when people only think of art as paintings, drawings, sculptures, and music.  I'd imagine a decent length brickfilm requires a lot more time and effort than some paintings.

I would probably say that anything someone has invested their energy, creativity, ideas, time, or skills into, with the intent for it to be enjoyed by anyone or invoke though, emotion, or feeling, into anyone, is art.

That's just the definition I would give it, art is such a subjective term it's not really defined as a simple statement because everyone has a different idea of art.  But that's my opinion.

Personal Website + Portfolio
Available for Film Composition

I took this class called Great Ideas, in which someone will bring up a question and we'll discuss it for a while. Well, this question was bound to come up, and throughout the discussions I held the point of view that if someone deems something art at all then hell yes that is an art right there. see that shark, it is art. so is the toilet. and the soup advert. they are all an art. yes. i love arts.

think about it this way. "The Last Airbender" is a bad movie. Does that stop anyone from agreeing that it is a movie, though? It is still considered a movie. So why, on a larger scale, is "bad art" considered to be not art?

Needless to say the class conversation stagnated there for weeks on end and I later considered derailing the topic by asking the class "can tweets be considered an art?"