Every day, we are confronted with tons of visual sights and images. Some rouse our curiosity and amusement, and some become background noise. But of those multitudes of images, what can be considered art? Is art defined by the creator or the beholder? Does it have to evoke meaning, or is it inherent?
The first picture I took was of road graffiti placed by utility workers. This, I would definitely not label art because it was drawn for the specific purpose of demarcating certain infrastructure beneath the street or possible future excavations. The graffiti marks were only made for that practical reason. They may have an aesthetic appeal as well, with the different colors and all, but since they were created with no intention of being thought provoking or emotionally evocative, and the only motive behind it was to communicate a practical message, I would not call that art. That isn’t to say that someone couldn’t draw meaning from it; meaning is in the eye of the beholder, but that doesn’t make it art.
The second picture, that I would definitely consider art, is of a domed part of a building. The white colored base, in contrast with the rest of the building, along with, and especially, the golden dome, are clear architectural embellishments, and don’t serve any purpose but to draw in the eye. Architecture is a well-established medium of art. It is a purposeful physical and visible expression of creativity, and a lot of aspects of it are purely aesthetically based, and do not add to the functionality of the establishment. Architecture, however, is something that may not have any meaning to some people, and is a creation of the architect. Yet, I still undoubtedly consider it art. Therefore, for something to be labeled art, it does not require the approval of the beholder.
The last picture I took was of the Starbucks logo. This seemed like a good option for something that was arguably art. On one hand, its purpose is just to serve as a visual image to go along with the Starbucks name, that would commercialize the brand and would make people remember it more. On the other hand, it is a graphic image specifically designed to be appealing, and maybe out of the context of Starbucks it was explicitly intended to be art. It raises the question of whether the context of something affects if it can be seen as art or not. The Starbucks logo embodied this dilemma well, since it’s something people see all the time, but probably don’t think much of. It’s seen more as an association to the brand of Starbucks, than as a piece of art to be analyzed.
Art is something created with a visual purpose. It can express emotions or thoughts, or try to convey a message, but the core of an art piece, what makes something art, is that it was made to have some kind of graphic impression, in one way or another. Whether that be an aesthetic appeal or the exact opposite, if an object was made with the intent to impress upon, it can be considered art.
I definitely agree with you about the classifying of the graffiti as non art, because although it is very common for graffiti to be very beautiful and actually portray a colorized depiction of something, your photo displays the results of somebody probably fooling around with a can of spray paint, and since it is not clear as to what the graffiti actually shows, it is difficult to label it as art. I believe, however, that the Starbucks logo is definitely art. I don’t believe that being the face of a brand detracts from it being considered art. Art, being as subjective as it is, can still be considered art even if millions of people take it for granted as a company logo, since it only takes one person who can extract meaning from the piece to consider it a work of art. For example, if the Mona Lisa suddenly became the logo for Amazon, it would probably be less widely admired or treasured, since it would be so common, but nonetheless it would still be a work of art.
Funnily enough I believe that your first picture would be considered art, because most graffiti is done with the purpose of drawing the eye, and making a impression on the viewer, which is something you would consider art, by your definition. I think is what this has done. Graffiti is a way of expression which I think art should be.
Your second picture I would consider as possibly art. It is very aesthetically pleasing to look at, but it is a simple building, with no context. And while one could provide a backstory for it, it really is just a group of buildings.
I do love your definition of art, I do agree that art is supposed to leave an impression.