Another argument as to what constitutes art is the intention of the creator themselves. If they have purposely set out to create something that is art, put in time, effort, even study, to be a creator — then it could be argued that the eventual product is a work of art. However, that’s as limited as defining ‘composer’ as ‘one who composes’.

What if it’s a product by an artist who does not intend to make art at that point of time — but instead is baking a cake? While they may be a great dancer and a renown choreographer, their culinary skills might not be as sophisticated (they may even be known to burn toast on a regular basis!). A composer could have a bad day and throw away a piece they were working on because it doesn’t meet the standards they hoped for; or a few paintings by a child could be a therapeutic exercise rather than an effort to produce art.

Despite this, we should consider that the work may have value even if it is not intentionally art by its creator — it may have significance as sketches or plans, works that are unfinished or striking in their construction even if the creator in question hadn’t intended it as such. Evidence for what constitutes art should allow for a flexible approach to what the final product is judged by — which may include the intention of artist, but not necessarily.