I think that this picture is not art because to me, this doesn't symbolize anything, it doesn't make me think there is a theme or message behind this picture, and it doesnt evoke an emotion. The picture just has 3 pillars in an area and maybe if they were bent or carved to make an objet that had more meaning, I would probably say it is art. But because it is just 3 pillars and it doesn't show me any theme or message behind it like the previous post I had where I could say so many things about what the meaning of that picture is, this is not art.
Art must evoke an emotion, must have an uplifting theme or message, must be a form of communication between the artist and the viewer, and must be unique. If an art piece doesn't have these different types of criteria, it is not art.
For the questions above, I think that most of the questions that were voted a lot on were really what I thought art must be in order for a viewer to see that the art is art. One question that I really thought shouldn't have had any votes for was the "Must be done by a recognized artist" because to me, a piece of art shouldn't be determined by if the person creating the art is known or not because anyone can create art. The art doesn't have to be really nice or have people like it, I think that as long as it has a meaning behind it and people can understand what the art is supposed to show people, then it shouldn't have to be done by recognized artists. After I saw these questions, I started to think about the different things that people want art to be. I think that people shouldn't see art as what they want it to be, but how the artist of the art wants people to see out of it.