What is your personal definition of art? Would you agree that art is an expression that should have no limits and that as long as it illicit a reaction whether positive or negative, then it is art?

I think art is, more or less, without limits. If you look up the word art in a dictionary, you will find that art is the making of objects, images, music, etc., that are beautiful or that express feelings. Or an activity through which people express feelings. So by that definition art is something people do to express their feelings - that is, to express what bothers them, express emotions related to childhood, to events they've experienced that has since troubled them etc., or it could be someone expressing feelings of joy, euphoria, etc. I think that art can mainly be put into two groups. One is the kind of art where people seek to express their feelings - so it is a tool for them in somewhat the same way a therapist could be of help. And the other group is art that is brought into this world through inspiration, inspired art and somehow without purpose. But art could also be both at the same time, someone expressing their personal feelings in a way that is somehow inspired. I would define art somewhere along the lines of: art is the act of expression through a medium or activity, and a result of inspiration. So anyone that could possibly share my definition of art, would probably also agree with me when I say that art is without limits because inspiration is without limits. If you look at the word inspiration it means something that comes to you in the spirit, so to speak. Albert Einstein once expressed something along the lines "Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." The opposite of inspiration would have to be imitation and repetition, the act of doing something which has already been done. So something which isn't inspired is bound to be something which already exists within us, our knowledge. If you create something out of inspiration, it has a freshness to it, it's something new. I don't think we can impose any principles of limits onto the concept of inspiration, it is by nature without limits. So if art is created as an act of inspiration, there are no limits. It is not a creation of the mind.

It is almost 2014 but the majority of people, mostly for comfort and convenience sake are still living on one of the 2Oth Century art-worlds such as this. It is no longer requisite, but The Renaissance, and Classicism culminating in the inevitable revolutionary and evolutionary break of Modernism has left most people confused and very wary. Art is, without any necessity for calling up any polarity, the antithesis of consensus, convention, and the illusional mythos of creativity and originality, the freedom to step outside such limitations and to explore the nature of difference and express personal preference without any particular obligation to the domains of mental ideology. Art is a license to operate anywhere with as much profundity and responsibility abut a different tool set as its partner, Science. Or such has been implied or potential to artists and art-worlds for quite a few decades now.  A few artists have already slipped the conventional leash and seem unlikely to return. There is still enthusiasm for Modernism and Classicism, there is nothing to fear of losing them. New people of aesthetic mindsets will relish the opportunities coming on line over the next 50 years, not only in technological terms, but also in new freedoms of thought made possible by exploring figurative twists on the new materialism just dawning. The possibilities in Art are pretty wide open just now,. and the potential is immense. A century or more ago anyone could become "an inventor". Something like that moment exists right now. Not all of what is assumed to be Geek Technology territory  will be held exclusively on the materialistic metrified side of all of the potential equations that exist or might be framed. With 7-8 billion people beginning to come online, and with human knowledge doubling every couple of years ALL of the old boxes are too small. It could be that "outside the box" is where everyone will be by mid century. Who knows? My definition of art cannot be framed in terms of the question. I am not constrained to the entertainment section or to museums or galleries or openings. I "make" yes but there is no form-factor that what I make must fit like Procrustes victims were made to fit his bed choices may amount to nothing but I do what I care about with as much care as I can bring to what I do. My aesthetic determines my decision my sense of '"rightness" and appropriate fit relative to context. Nothing is static, everything that survives, adapts and unfolds in new ways. It is impossible to say exactly how Art will appear decades hence or what the word will refer to. Art is consequent to every poll on consensus that gets floated,

Modern art is created by ascription. Thus, an artists says 'It is art', then it is art. Unfortunately many things ascribed as art are bad art.