definition?

Wochen Klausur's approach to what art is likens the definition of art to the definition of words, and how this definition will change according to who is using them. I agree that the idea of what constitutes art can change depending on who is viewing it, and I find it difficult when there are groups that insist of there being only one view of art. I find it possible to believe in art of all types, and I find it fundamentalist to reject a piece from the artworld because it doesn't necessarily within which ever 'art' definition you're subscribing to.

Michael Keighry gave a talk last week and treated us to the entertainment of one his alter egos. I wonder how his behaviour is defined in the art world - some of his works evolve out of boredom (his nine month long conversion of his office into an anachronism) or necessity - the pieces he creates for the purpose of being sold at markets. Are these pieces still considered art? Does he consider them artworks? Would the art world? I feel that these seemingly 'nonesense' pieces work in much the same way his art does - presenting an idea to the viewer in a whimsical (and sometimes comical) way and leaving it up to them to make up their mind about it. His work is fun, weird, irreverant and probably quite offensive to some. I find him incredibly inspiring, because with it he has made a place for himself in both the world and the artworld - two places that are not neccessarily the most welcoming.