Here's an interesting addition to the discussion about what is art.
There are some insightful comments under it, as is common on tOP, for example Janne's and Ctein's, both of which point to the change of the perciever's way of looking, and its influence on the experience of aesthetics.
And also Damon who says:
"I do take issue, though, with equating "art" and "successful art." It really does seem needlessly elitist to me to put down unsuccessful art as being something other than what it was intended as. But what is it then? If Van Gogh's early work isn't art, what is it? Craft? Likely not accomplished enough to qualify as craft. No, sorry, it's art. You may not like it; it may not work for you as art. It may work better as a wrapper of fish and liner of birdcages, but it's still art."
And David says:
"Lots of people hate cubism in general. Does this make all cubist art suddenly 'not art'?"
Just so. The problem is that there should be a pretty objective definition to aid communication about art, and the quality of experience is totally subjective. How many people have to agree that it's art for it to be art? How do we decide who is right? Is it a matter of education? Or innate sensibility?