Jane: What is art?

I don't believe that anyone can claim to hold the definitive answer to this question. I'll contend, though, that some answers might be more correct than others (though I won't claim to possess one of them). I'll start with what is not art: a discarded ratty container carrying remnants of Cracklin O's. A signed ratty container displayed at the RISD museum? Perhaps the light hits the Cracklin O's crumbs just so, artfully, even. Perhaps the piece serves as a commentary towards our own wasteful eating habits. Is pure intention enough to transform refuse into art? Regardless, someone agreed to place it on display, perhaps a Cracklin O's fan.

The word art, too, is used rather liberally. I can shave my legs really well, but can you call that an art? How about the art of war, the art of conversation, the art of seduction? Artist is equated with master, a linguistic error in my view. 

So art is not shaving, and art is not (arguably) a ratty container. Yet it's strange that the definition of art, a noun, is up for debate: not what qualifies good art, but characteristics a piece has to have in order to achieve artistic status. And isn't it the status, really, that has driven our definitions over the centuries? The same argument that differentiated graffiti and other "lower" artistic endeavors from art? What encompasses art today is broader than ever, considering the rise of graphic and electronic media now constantly testing held beliefs. 

I suppose I'll formulate my own opinion now:

Art is a form of creative expression produced and/or conceptualized by an artist, one who endeavors to create that which might move us, inspire us, provoke us into thought. An artist chooses the lens through which he sees the world, and through creation attempts to impart that lens to an audience.