For someone to say that art, being ART, should be fully intentional and representational, is a shallow way of thinking. Unfortunately, many people these days need the two qualities above to even ENJOY art. However, I personally would find difficult to intentionally add emotions into my painting. Different paintings inspire different people, and to put boundaries on art is ludacris. Take the Hall of Bulls in France, and how people continually ogle over it. Do we really believe that our early cave dwellers painted on those stones, hoping that thousands of years later we would oh and awe over them? I highly doubt it. Nor do I believe that Jackson Pollock painted in his manner to show anything recognizable by the human mind. Sometimes artists view that it is time to break away from "art" in its traditional forms to educate the public, you might say, on what art really is.
Starting in the early 1900's, the Dada movement swept across Europe and the U.S. Andre Brenton defined Dada movement as "...a state of mind... Dada is artistic free thinking... Dada gives itself to nothing..." This is not to say, however, that Dadaism is definable in any respect. The pure purpose of the Dada movement was art that could not be labeled, categorized, or defined.
Obviously art is not something to be defined and given boundaries. However (seeing as this is part of the assignment) i believe I will take a stab at defining art.
Art is the emotional release through activities, assuming there will be a product. Usually understood to be mostly the visual arts, such as paintings, sketches, sculpture, or printmaking, but we cannot exclude music, and literature, and dance as art forms. I know I am leaving something out, and I'm sure it will be pointed out to me, hopefully.