An outsiders view

I was going through my e-mails and came across Sean's response to reading my reflective journal essay. He makes some interesting points;

For instance, Licence To Spill got me thinking, as it does you when you mention "art's role in politics". But my problem is that I am at a bit of a loss as to what premise I have to assent to in order to concede that it is definitively "art", and to be considered wholly distinct from the sort of political expression a politician might make in the house of commons or a bloke sticking a home-made political sign to his window. Is it the symbolic aspect in the act of spilling oil and feathers in front of the Tate gallery with their BP sponsorship that puts this in the "art" category? Whereas a political commentator sharing her thoughts doesn't use such symbolism, so therefore that person is not making art in their expression. But then again, the very words are symbols that encode an overall meaning of a similar kind, it's a form of expression as legitimate as any other, so then which forms of expression can we identify as "art" and which can we say are "not art"? When David Cameron last gave a speech was that art? Is he an artist? If not, why not? Is it because he didn't give the speech a title or submit it to a gallery? Is it because it's an expected part of his job? Is it because it's not something you'd want to listen to for it's artistic merit? Why was Licence to Spill firmly in the "art" camp when other similar political acts aren't considered to be? Is it because these other acts were not intended as works of art? Does the intention of the perpetrator define their "art-hood"? Am I an artist without knowing it? Is someone out there writing an essay about me?