I recently listened to a Grayson Perry lecture on what the boundaries of art are. He talks about what does and does not qualify as art and how the limits of what we can call art are softer and have become softer since modernism began in the 60's, since then people have started to question the nature of art and what can actually be called art. How arts boundaries are psychological, financial, philosophical and tribal. At the start of the lecture, the first thing the lady that who introduced Perry asked him whether him being dressed as a woman to the lecture was art, he replied with no and further on in the lecture explained how you can literally make anything and call it art these day.
He talks about how he determines whether something is a work of art and explains the boundaries and questions you can ask yourself when trying to determine whether something is a piece of art; is it in a gallery or art context? Is it a boring version of something else? Is it made by an artist? If they're smiling its probably not art? etc etc. He quotes Martin Parr who said "If its bigger than 2 meters and priced higher than 5 figures then its probably art", I think that this is an accurate representation of what art basically is now, something is only considered art if it is made by someone that is already famous and the piece of work is priced high and although he says that contemporary art has no boundaries at all, I believe that there will always be something holding someone back from doing something purely because they think because of whoever they may be they won't get recognised for that piece of artwork, which links in to what Grayson says in the lecture about the boundaries of art being psychological.
