I didn't want to interupt the Noguchi thread with my "I just don't get it" moment.
I must admit that I am probably not qualified to speak to the artisitc nature of the Noguchi piece, nor can I wax poetic while trying, but I do have a reaction.
Some art I get, others I don't. Noguchi, I don't. That's just me. But, the Noguchi base IS part of the art. My 2 cents.
How we value art is what baffles me. We can teach an elephant or a chimp to splatter paint onto a canvas and sell for thousands. Is that art? Not to me.
I have paintings on my wall, wood carvings, ceramic and glass pieces. All categorized as art, and all have monetary value.
The art that get's to me has no monetary value. It's natural. That's what art is to me. 
<img class="wpforo-default-image-
.
Beautiful but natures forms aren't art to me.
Art (aside from music and dance etc) is always an artifact but an artifact isn't necessarily art.
There needs to be an intention, a mind (or two), communication and an aesthetic, at least.
The clarity, intelligence and relevance of those things and other criteria that others might care to name determine the signifigance of the work.
My two cents, boy-o this could turn into a long thread huh?
I'd say
we have to accept that nature isn't what's meant by the (human) word Art -- because by art we mean that which was made by artifice -- by man.
But the appreciation of nature, and the effort to record or reflect it, is as basic to the production of art as anything else we could name, with as old a history as any other influence on the artist -- wouldn't you say ?
As for the difference between art and design, I hold that the differences and the similarities are self-evident -- and that there is only a hair's breadth of difference between the two. Is there enough of a difference to justify the two discrete terms ? Yes, because there is a difference between them. But the similarities, the parallels, of both thought and action, unify art and design as in no other pair of disciplines I can think of, offhand . . .
Heath hit the nail on the head...
Beauty is often misconstrued as art. Not so.
And yes, this is a can of worms. It involves philosophy as well as theology.
Depending on one's ethos, the difference can be radical. Although I do think there is a relative truth in there somewhere. As I think whitespike said, there are grey areas however.
"Three easy credits."
That one answer on a final exam earned me a grade of A-.
We can argue this until we're no longer on speaking terms, but, since you asked nicely and I don't have to have dinner ready for a while yet, here goes:
Art is any product put forth as such by its maker.
I'll accept the risk of taking things even further and posit that there can be neither good nor bad art.
I find it difficult to generalize
I find it difficult to generalize, without a specific "art attempt" to consider. (Its hard enough when you have something to look at!)
One can usually find a fairly hefty art historical exception to any set of rules that you can come up with, for what constitutes "Art".
Some of these ideas above are good for thought though. Better than I could come up with. So much depends upon the level of inquiry of the viewer.
History tends to sort it out in the long run, but only in one way.
But for any individual, at any given moment, if something works for them -for just that moment-- then I would have to say that it was ART for them, at least for that moment.
But moments fade. Awareness evolves. Yesterdays ART experience often becomes today's numb cliche.
A sense of purpose. Visual clarity. Pictorial invention. And a sense of necessity.
CRAFT? IDEA? INVENTION?
The perfect fusion of form and content! Jesus...
These are some things that I would guess a lot of good art seems to have.
There are standards. They are just weighted quite differently in different instances.
Sad clowns, dogs playing cards,
cartoonish little ballerinas with huge eyes, anything by "C. Jere"... it's all legitimate art, though you'd be hard pressed to find these in an art museum. Pieces that have withstood the test of time represent for most people some basis for judging what constitutes "real" or "good" art, but, in the end, art is the interaction between the maker and the audience. Because a five year-old girl responds to a stylized sketch of a cute puppy and I don't doesn't diminish the reality or validity of her experience.
BTW, that was an honest shot, Ball. Thanks.
More rambling
Some great points by all. So, consider these questions.
1 - Are the Pyramids in Egypt art? Did they intend them to be so?
2 - Is the guy playing a bucket with drumsticks in the Hampstead tube station an artist?
3 - Is the "rabbit" shape on the moon art?
4 - Are cave drawings considered art?
Off the top o' me noggin:
Pyramids: Likely no. Decorations inside: Yes
Derelict banging buckets: Desperate, deluded, drug-addled bullshit artist, but ya, an artist. (Far be it from me to judge. But by the grace of God... etc.)
Imagined representational shapes on moon: Yer kiddin', right?
Prehistoric cave paintings: Yep, you bet.
I can add this:
Architects, many of them (generations, sects, disciplines, etc, TBD), opt out -- they don't see their discipline as art. This surprises me.
Alexander Calder reportedly didn't call his work "art." This also surprises me, though not so much.
So, there are mysteries surrounding this subject. I've heard it said that a true artist -- albeit a humble one -- doesn't call himself that; he leaves that judgement to others. Would that all of us could be so modest . . . !
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com