i was trying to say that anything can't be art, i was saying that itz "art" in the sense that picasso's art is art, other things would fall under more of an "aesthetic" category.......i can't really give a profound statement, only perspectives.....for example, what is more so considered artistic: music by rolling stones, or music by britney spears (one comes with passion from the artist, they themselves feel it and connect with it; the other is a product of a business); another example: majority rules, art scholars and public alike will more likely consider Mona Lisa a work of art other than a McDonald's (though that does not accurately, justifiably, prove that what the mass considers art is art); another example: art is meant to envoke feelings within you.....i would suspect that a piece by picasso or pollock or dahli (spellings of names...?) have more of an ability/essence.aesthetic-ability to envoke more feelings than a McDonalds.........

you are correct, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; aestheticism is synonymous with beauty......it just seems to me that there should be some kind of separation to what is considered as "art" and what is considered as "art: under the application of aestheticism"

one more point: nietzsche declared that the artists sees the world for what it really is.........not everyone does this.