In my opinion, Art is a relative term, not an absolute one. Something is not Art in the absolute sense, it is "Art to me". Which means I like it for the way it affects me, rather than for any practical reason. A painting that I love and want to own for its beauty is art to me, a painting that I hang to cheer up the hallway is not - to me, but you may love that painting so it is art to you. Beethoven's 5th is art to me, lift music definitely is not.

Any activity which arises from "creative energy" qualifies as art in my book. People might arrange their shoes in a novel way, or suddenly be inspired to clean their toilet to a level of purity previously unmatched. It's that 100% engaging with the subject -- becoming one with the activity -- that makes it art, not the specific kind of work result. Having said that, as an audience member I'm not very interested or moved by a really clean toilet. There's another "level" of art which involves the intention to communicate with others and share. So when that element is added in, we get to something closer to a conventional definition of art -- it involves creation into a shared space in which there is an interpretive context provided by the listeners. The artist is "speaking" and "listening", the audience is "listening", and there are common frames of interpretive reference on both sides which serve as the stage for the communication. Without that shared interpretive framework, there's no basis for communication. So for those unsatisfied with toilet-cleaning and shoe-arranging, if you add "creative energy" to "shared interpretive framework", I think those are the basic essentials of art.

Art is anything that "touches" you in a way. To me, art is something you can watch, hear, feel or taste each day, every day, and never grow tired of how it makes you feel......