ART? BLEAGH?

So, I was thinking about this art/not-art debate. I actually really like McCloud's definition even thought I think it goes overboard. actually, over-broad. It encompasses too much, but in my opinion, it's better to call too many things art than not enough. Calling things aren't that weren't intended to be is fine, but telling someone who thinks they've created art that they actually haven't is communist.

I came up with a possible solution to this question. It harkens back to science class, which I did pretty well in. So follow this if you can:

Two of the types of energy are kinetic and potential. If a rock is rolling down a hill, that is kinetic energy. If that same rock is sitting at the top of a hill not moving, we say it has potential energy because of the energy that it could possess if prompted.

Similarly, I am proposing that there are two ways of looking at art: kinetic art, meaning things that were made to be art, and potential art: things that could be art with just a little prompting.

Objects or oter things that possess potential art can have more or less potentiality.

For example, a painting that someone has done that hangs in a museum is kinetic art. ( I know the word kinetic makes no sense in this case, but let's just run with it) This means that it was proably made to be art, and "most" people would recognize it as such.

On the other hand, a Polaroid that I take of my friend is potential art. It isn't NECESSARILY art, but it could be if it were prompted to be so. I would say that this object, as well as most regular photographs have very high potential art, because it doesn't take much imagination to imagine them as such.

On the other hand, a torn piece of paper on the ground has very low potential art. It would take much more imagination to see this object as art.

This idea is not fully fleshed out, but I really like what I've done here. I think my ideas are much better than everyone else's. I'm the smartest person in the world.