Quote - Morkonan, what about art for the sake of art?  I mean you can create a picture or write a poem not because you want to convey any meanings, but because they wanted to paint a picture or write a poem.

IMO, if it is not created with the intention of conveying meaning, then it is not "Art."

Anyone can interpret something to have some sort of meaning to it.  So, someone stumbling across your personal doodles may say "Look!  It's ART!"  But, they'd be wrong.  They could just as well pickup a rock and say "Look! It's ART!"  The creator must have intent to create it as a form of expression which conveys more than the sum of its parts.

Now, figure out why you may like to doodle or write a poem to yourself.  Does it give you some sense of meaning greater than the sum of its parts even when strictly interpreted by yourself?  Hey, you can create art just to entertain yourself, you know?  In that case, if you intend or experience the creation of greater meaning in your doodles, then it IS art.

Quote - And as dphoadley said, "art is what I like".   So if I don't agree with the meaning, I'm certainly not going to consider it art.  If the meaning is intentionally offensive I wouldn't consider that art, I'd consider that junk that some b****** made to piss people off.

Plus you might not know if something with created to express a meaning or not.

Whether or not it is bad art, successful art or even decently inspired art isn't the point.  If it was created with the purpose of conveying a meaning greater than the sum of its parts, it's Art.  You'll find that definition should stay valid through any artistic circumstance you can think of.