By that logic, you should come see me play the guitar and sing. I am terrible at both (really, truly terrible; not being shy, objectively, you-would-rather-listen-to-nails-on-glass terrible). But you should come see me express myself and attempt to do this. It will be super artistic, I promise.
The thing is, we agree that there is music and there is noise. People draw the line in different places, but we all agree that it exists. Why is it that I can literally shit on the floor in front of you and when you yell "what the fuck is this?" I can answer "it's art" and have the audience go "oh, he's good!"? Is it perhaps because, no matter what, I can say that my brand of art is just so new, so advanced, that nobody has understood it yet? Then have some PhD candidate years from now write a dissertation on how I managed to portray the human condition to validate the shit I put out.
I define art as creation that does not have to do anything but could invoke some feelings in the recipient.
What's important is that you don't have to like art. If it evokes feelings in you that you don't like then just stay away from it. Appreciating art is not a contest. If someone expects you to appreciate same art as them that's their problem with expectations management not yours with performance. I would come to hear you play but if your music would invoke feelings in me that I wouldn't want then I'd leave. Some other person might like the chaos brought by lack of skills crossed with enthusiasm.
The problem starts when people start talking about art ... they say dumbest things and often get away with it.
That is very close to what I consider art, with the proviso that it should invoke the feelings the artist intent (or tell the story the artist intent) and that simply being annoyed at what people can waste government subsidies on should not be considered a feeling.
I think invoking feelings artist intended or even requiring artist to intend to invoke specific feelings is too high of a standard. I agree with you on the second point.
Your definition is the thing I hear a lot. It makes sense in the abstract, but when you start applying it to actual examples, it breaks down. I will refer you to the "Can you fry that?" skit from The Community: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qcjse8Opobw.
Basically, unlike what your definition suggests, some art is objectively better than other. Some art takes more skill and invokes more and better feeling than other. Take a look (ideally in person) at Rodin vs Shapiro's work. See which makes you feel more and more intensely. Modern artists substitute enthusiasm for skill way too often for my taste.
Skill is not the point of art. Feelings of the beholder are. If you create hyperrealistic portrait then the creation itself is worthless for me because it evokes no feelings because it looks like yet another magazine photo. The process of creating hyperrealistic portrait is worth more as a piece of performance art because at least it evokes some feelings.
I agree that some art can be in some sense better than other. But the only thing you can do is gather statistics about what feelings and how strong any given piece invokes in some population sample. But feelings don't have clear definition of better. Also statistics doesn't have it either. So even objective comparisons are subjective because you have to subjectively choose what you objectively compare.
There are people who have shat on the floor and called it art. And there are people who go to watch it. (google "poop artist"). You don't have to like it (I personally don't) but you're naive to ignore a whole community that upholds pooping as art. And many of those shit artists have classical art training too!
And I'd love to see you play guitar and sing. It may not be "correct" by contemporary standards, but if it's an honest attempt at expressing yourself, and I enjoy it (I personally love to hear bad singers), then why not?
The thing is, we agree that there is music and there is noise. People draw the line in different places, but we all agree that it exists. Why is it that I can literally shit on the floor in front of you and when you yell "what the fuck is this?" I can answer "it's art" and have the audience go "oh, he's good!"? Is it perhaps because, no matter what, I can say that my brand of art is just so new, so advanced, that nobody has understood it yet? Then have some PhD candidate years from now write a dissertation on how I managed to portray the human condition to validate the shit I put out.
Wow, that turned into a rant...