What Makes Something Art?

I refuse to make a promise about cranking out these blog entries, when you and I both know that I will inevitably get distracted by an idea and spend months in the studio following where the inspiration leads me. It is not that I do not want to write these blog entries, it is just that the studio work tends to be more exciting. That said, I do have at least three short posts I can share. We will just have to see where this goes after this first one.

My meditations lately have been about the nature of art and creativity. This is in part due to a couple of discussion groups I have attended, some lectures my wife was wise enough to drag me to and some reading I have done on the nature of intellect as it pertains to art.

So, I began wondering what really makes someone an artist, and what makes their work art. Some say, like Warhol, it is anything you call art or "can get away with." If you say you are an artist you are. That doesn't really define it for me, so I asked these questions.

Is art simply technical mastery and the ability to faithfully render an image of a subject?
If that were the case you would have to call a camera or a photocopier an artist. These are fine artistic tools but do not guarantee the creation of art.

Is art the concept or thought process that someone conceives?
Unfortunately the expression of concept is done much too often in the name of art, but totally devoid of aesthetic merit.

Is art innovation or invention of new and different methods and techniques?
Although this lends interest and novelty to artwork, the argument could be made that many of the grandmasters merely followed long traditions when completing their masterworks.

Perhaps art is all and none of these things. I humbly submit that at the most basic level, art and true creativity is the ability to impart life (truth, beauty and goodness) into image, form, thing, etc. Without this element the work is merely craft and the production of soulless objects.