Oh dear! What have I done? From the responses gleaned so far, I seemd to have committed some enormous transgression on the scale rivalling some heinous crime or other.
Very sorry for creating such a storm. I hadn't realised the enormitty of the furore and controversy I would stir up. Sorry, I was just ignorant about 'art' and what constitutes 'art'.
Ok, I get the impression that art by its very nature can't be defined, at least in any meaningful and empirical way, as to do so would then preclude anything so produced from being classified as art. Ok, I get it now. Just one thing now occurs to me as a result. How do you recognise something as art when you see it and how can any value then be attributed to any piece of art? How in some instances, can a general concensus be formed on certain art creations that are recognised as "great" art, whilst the majority of art is never acknowledged as such? How can creation A be widely recognised and be valued financially in stratospheric dollar amounts whilst creation B is valued financially in junk dollar amounts? Both creations may be individually unique and yet one is highly prized and the other not. I assume any value or worth of art is subjective, yet there must be something about certain pieces that can be defined so as to create a recognised concensus amongst the cognoscenti.
If by asking or posing this I'm going to cause another storm, then please do not feel the need to reply and just ignore my post, thanks to everyone who has replied so far and to those who have the interest to educate me by replying to my current post. (Now where would we be without a little controversy every now and then?).