Defining What Art is Not

I had a teacher in acting class who said this about art, and I've adopted it as my own: Art must be more than just a clever idea.

You probably see where I'm going here.  I think there's a lot of so-called modern art that is either very poor art, or not even art at all.

Let me put it this way.  I am not a novelist.  I have a million different ideas for stories - I'm a very brainstormy kind of guy.  But if you picked up my book that's 300 pages long and only 5 pages were filled out, I think you'd feel cheated.  I might describe an amazing plot and interesting characters and fill in the themes and arcs and everything.  But if I haven't actually done the work of writing the novel out, then it's not a novel (although it might be a novel idea - see what I did there?) 

One of the reasons I've never turned one of my stories into a novel is because I know I wouldn't be very good at all of the descriptions and pacing and onomatopoeia and all of that other stuff that goes into it.  I can write screenplays, because that's mostly telling what happens and who says what.  And I can write this blog, because part of the idea here is to get an idea across in a fairly concise manner.  But I don't want to waste anybody's time with my poor execution in a novel just because I have a great idea.

But that's exactly what some 'artists' seem to do.  And I just don't think that 212 layers of the same red paint on a canvas qualifies as art.  Where is the talent?

What else is not art? 

Something that merely serves a function is not art.  A car, no matter  how cool looking, is not art.  A technical manual would not be art, no matter how well it is written.  A well-brewed latte, even with a cute design in the foam, is not a work of art.

Something that is simply discovered is not art.  If someone finds some trash laid out in a manner that is pleasing to his eye and takes a picture of it, that is not art.  Let us not confuse something that is pleasant to behold with art.

Nature is not art.  Yes, it's God's art, but if everything is art, then nothing is art.

Some other questions arise ...

What about art by kids?  Well, I think you have to take into account the age and aptitude of the artist.  And let's be honest, most artwork by kids, while it is art, is very bad art.  You may like it for sentimental reasons, and that's completely valid.  But just because Billy's drawing of his mommy in some ways resembles a Picasso, don't be confused into thinking it's great art.  Only one of them was done that way on purpose.

What about architecture?  I think there are many things done with artistry.  But while I may consider the Golden Gate Bridge to be 'a work of art', I don't mean that literally - I'm using metaphor to make the point that it's architecture that is so beautiful that I feel justified in comparing it.  Now, something like the Disney Concert Hall is another matter, as it's made to be both functional and artistic, so it perhaps exists in both worlds.

What about video games?  This, again, is a hybrid.  Some of the images in video games are quite beautiful or haunting or what have you.  And these companies have hired artists to create whole little worlds.  There is definitely art in there, but I would not say the game itself is art, as the game itself could function with stick figures.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure some of you will.  But if you disagree, then how do you define art?  And don't say it's indefinable, as that's just a cop-out.  There may be gray areas, but surely you can come up with some boundaries?