[quote="Mulkaccino":3l3ojumx]"I think a good definition of art would be any form of expression."[/quote:3l3ojumx]
Yelling at someone who cuts you off in traffic isn't art, and that is a form of expression.
I personally don't adhere to the idea that anything can be art, or that anything can be art as long as the artist says it's art. That's Dadaism, and in my opinion Marcel Duchamp and his ilk did more harm than good with their movement because it went largely misunderstood by the public and fellow artists alike. The dadaist movement was meant to be a criticism of modern art, which dadaists found to me empty and meaningless. It was anti-art, and it allowed you to do things like pick up any object, sign your name on it, hang it on a wall, and charge $5000. Or to stand on one leg in a park while gargling pudding, and tell everyone it means something deep and significant.
It's exactly that sort of thing that makes the masses see art in general as a big pile of bullshit. It devalues real art. Saying anything can be art is the same sort of "everyone is a winner" mentality that kindergarten teachers have when they hand out a trophy to every kid in the class for the field day sack race even though it was little Billy that actually won. In my opinion it's a meaningless, empty gesture and it makes little Billy's victory less special and significant.
If anything can be art, then art has no meaning or purpose.
So no, I don't think a regular brick lying on the sidewalk can be art. I do think that a brick could possibly inspire some personal reflection in an individual, but so can someone yelling at you in traffic. So can a tree, or the moon, or a rainy day. But those aren't art either, they're nature.
A brick is a tool, and tools are not art. In fact, you could define a tool as the opposite of art... a tool has low aesthetic value but a high degree of practical use. Art (at least fine art) has a high aesthetic value and a low degree of practical use.
Similarly, high aesthetics and high practicality would be craft. Low aesthetics and low practicality would be trash. These are the four basic types of human creations. Art, Craft, Tools, and Trash. Anything you make will fall into one of those categories to one degree or another, but their placement is rather subjective to the person doing the placing.
Anyway I guess my point is that just because something has meaning or can inspire you doesn't mean it's art, and likewise just because you're expressing an idea or an emotion doesn't mean you're making art.
It's generally accepted that fine art has no function other than to express an idea. If it serves some other function (such as to entertain) it then becomes practical, and would hence fall under the category of craft, or design, or applied art, which ever name you want to call it. It ceases to be fine art.
So I would actually agree more with newt's assessment.
tl;dr: blah blah blah