Denying "Art Pieces"

Question:
If art is an open concept filled with endless possibilities, why do we constantly deny pieces as "art" ?
     
      Even though art is "open" we judge it and we must judge it. If we don't then everything would be considered art. We cannot consider something to be art or have the same stature as a beautiful landscape painting if the piece is a plain geometric figure that has been sewed into paper with needle and thread. In order for something to be called art, it has to be worthy. Even when there is intent and some creativity, work can come out amateur without detail, lacking aesthetics. We love art because of the wow factor and aesthetics.  If work that had some creativity and intention could be considered art, then people wouldn't come up with new ideas and ways to outdo the past. This is why we can never have another Andy Warhol or another Jackson Pollock unless one out does them by using them as an inspiration. Then we can say he or she is the contemporary Pollock or Warhol. Art must have talent, originality, intention, and be aesthetically pleasing. If not, then the art would be filled with trash which would then reflex badly on our culture.  
      

 

If They Do Not Think it is Art, Then How Do We ?

Question:

       How can we consider tribal art, art if the tribe does not consider it so?     

       I feel as if this happens more than many times. People constantly view tribal art as art when the tribe would say, “it’s a pot I use to cook.” This may happen because people are overcome with the beauty of it. Pots in the United States are just pots in the United States. They are similar and they are not unique. They are manufactured and not hand made. Furthermore, people need to come up with their own definition of art. With that, they can say "what beautiful craft or craftsmanship'' instead of “what beautiful art work.” It is wrong for us to call someone's work art when they do not think of it so because we are forcing our own ideas and beliefs on them.               

Art in Other Places

Question:
If art in other countries is not seen as art, can we consider it a craft? 
           When thinking of questions as such, I always wonder, can art be functional? For those who think that it cannot be functional and must only serve the purpose of aesthetics, then tribal art such as plates, cups, pots etc. from the Baule tribe is not art. However, it is something. People take the time out to put symbols and decorations on the pot for example, and make sure it is capable to hold liquids or solids. But, those symbols may be bible references or references to their own gods. Furthermore, people like to have nice things, so if a cup is decorated, maybe it is to be used on a special occasion. So, in refusing to call this art, I will argue that it can be called a craft, unless crafts aren’t supposed to be useful. I think they are supposed to be useful, because the crafts I buy at craft fairs, I certainly use. Producers of their work sell it with the intention that the customer will be using it for the purpose it was made for.  When it comes to art, we want to preserve it. That is why we put it in galleries to be watched and cared for. The art from the Baule tribe is being worn away over time because, they would rather use it and get the most from it then stare at it and watch it do nothing. If the Baule tribe was to produce a painting, I would call that art, even if it were just to be hung in a house. The purpose was for it to please and be looked at by the family and visitors. If we decide to use art, the purpose of it has changed and it isn't art.