What is art?

Art to me is a "residual" word. If an object, stripped of all functionality and necessity, still has some value left, the left over is art. That's such a broad definition that even the design of tomato soup cans are artsy. But I'm okay with that. So was Warhol (1962). But in the case of soup cans, it takes a museum for people to notice the design quality of this item. We get used to it, and take it for granted. If we would not, then every advertisement, product design, product container, piece of (street) furniture, building, park, and anything else that was ever designed would amaze us and we wouldn't be able to walk 100 meters without exhausting our senses. It takes effort and time to appreciate art. But not all art is relevant to us. It's nice that the tomato soup can has a design, but usually I'm really only interested in the tomato soup, inside. Which is why art critics have the delicate task of trying to figure out what is relevant to "us": so what is worth reserving a spot for in a museum. That includes some evaluation of skill and commitment - we like to look at nice things -, but it's especially about intent. Well those museum pieces we can all pretty confidently call "Art" with a capital a.

But then there's still plenty of pieces that on an individual level have significance beyond their functionality. For example a painting by a 9 year old for their grandma might be worth more to her than a 4 million dollar Mondrian piece - perhaps she doesn't care about Mondrian at all and may claim - with some credibility - that her 9 year old grandchild makes more accurate drawings of faces. She will look at the crude lines that this 9 year old kid scratched on a paper, and examine the significance and intentions, just like you would with any artwork. Maybe she'll put it somewhere for all to see. Or at least store it somewhere safe, to look at later. Just as you would with genuine art. But not art with a capital a, then.

Note that I'm not saying anything about the quality of art. Grandma could come the the conclusion that the drawing is a piece of crap. The soup cans in the museum can be boring and ugly. But those are subjective value judgements that come after the establishment of the fact that there is something to be appreciated or not, beyond it's functional comfort. I appreciate art only if it is very relevant (intention/meaning) and quite well made (aesthetics). Others would find the latter more important perhaps. Matter of taste. But if it's neither relevant, nor of exceptional craftsmanship, then it might be art, but not worthy of notion. And I think most discussion is about this question: Is this piece so relevant or so well made that we should treat it as Art?

Okay, so what about accidental art? In my definition, it is art because someone recognized value beyond functionality. It might be based on a false reading of the intentions, which then makes for an interesting debate: why didn't the artist see that intention, and somebody else does? Apparently, issue being touched upon is not so clear or universally shared as the critic assumed. But I disagree with the idea latent in the quoted piece above, that the critic is able to see the mark of "Inspiration" in works he evaluates: As if inspiration is a fairy who takes hold of your pen and guides you to make the work: I think we all know this story of the divinely inspired artist, but I don't believe in fairies. Critics are not there to recognize any divinity in an artwork, or supernatural inspiration. They are there to see if artworks add to a cultural context in some meaningful way. And if it does - whether by accident or not - then it is probably Art.