Should art be intentional and representational to be considered art? (what is my personal definition of art?)
While talking on the phone a lot of times, I find myself taking a pen and scribbling on paper subconsciously random lines and shapes. Upon getting off the phone I realize that the doodle is awfully pleasing to look at, and though I did not intend for this to be art and it represents nothing. A stranger looking on this and who may also consider it pleasing may contrive many intentions and representations he/she believes the artist tried to display. Though I was sketching out of boredom with no desire to create art. It was the viewer who decided it was indeed art. Like the wall of Jericho, a great feat in Neolithic architecture, wasn't intended by it's builders to be considered art. But by viewers today it is very pleasing to look at and it invokes new meaning. This maybe the process that brands art all over the world. Anything that invites the viewer to take part in the many shapes, lines, and colors. An artifact that allows the audience to engage with it. A piece that is pleasing to look at by the viewer. In saying this I suggest it is the viewer (the critic) that judges rather or not something can be considered art. That they decide what the intention or what the representation is. Therefore art must be intentional, representational, or pleasing to someone even if it is not the artist. There are many variations of this, but ultimately the work must appeal to the viewer and it's intention and representation are just subdivisions of that appeal.
Art is anything that pleases the eye and engages the audience (a persisting advent). Something done for the world (but not necessarily) by a member of it. And though this member may turn to dust. Long after they have come and gone. Their art will remain for generations to be considered by many.
(Even if it is a doodle born from an idle phone conversation.)