"What is art?" is as slippery as "What is folk music?"

But for a paper in college I defined art this way:

Art is an arrangement, in any medium, intended to create an emotional response."

I went on to say that whether it's art and whether it's good art and whether it's valuable to the art consumer are three different questions.

Say a "serious" composer composes an orchestral work intended to commmunicate a horror about war. The title is something noncommittal, like "1945".   

He's a well respected composer, and the piece is performed by the local symphony orchestra publicly. There's a standing ovation!   

Clearly he's tried to communicate emotionally so it's art, and it causes an emotional reaction that is of value to the "consumers".   BUT!

As he stands in the lobby a little old lady comes up to him and gushes, "Oh, Mr. Composer, that was so wonderful! I could just feel that I was right there at that garden party!"   (I'm assuming for this purpose that she is representative of the average listener.)

It's art (because of its intent to communicate), it's of value to listeners, but it's a FAILURE in achieving its intent! It's art, it's of value, but it's not "good art".

Dave Oesterreich