I have an old dear friend who blogs regularly and did a series last year that was prompted by the alphabet. I thought then that it would be fun to try. (Thank you Marallyn! ) And it just so happens that “A” is perfect for something that I’ve been wanting to talk about here.
Last semester my husband showed a video to his Biological Anthropology class that portrayed a chimp painting. The chimp seemed to be enjoying the process and he made some colorful pictures. They weren’t representative of anything in particular – just colorful blobs of paint.
One of the students raised a question: Was the work that the chimp produced “Art”? Why do you think it might be? If you don’t think so, why not?
This remains a hotly debated topic in today’s Anthropological, Philosophical and Art circles.
Guila's Art & Other Assorted Joys 
I agree there is no right or wrong answer. But what would prompt you to think of the work as “art”? “not art”?
If the chimp understood the concept of “art” would he have done something other than blobs?
If someone buys the chimp’s paintings, then has that person bought a painting or a primate’s use of materials placed in front of him/her? One can find arguments for and against this.
I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer other than an individuals choice to perceive the work as “art” or “not art”.