What is Art? (baby don't hurt me...)

I'll begin with one of the most confusing pieces of performance art I've ever seen.

...That is, if I could ever find a video of it. In essence, it involved a very large piece of paper over a hole, and then having the artist walk through it. There was wild applause, and the paper remained in the gallery for a few weeks, if not months. So the burning question is, was that art? What was the art anyway? Was it the man walking through the paper? Was it the paper in the moment of being torn? In that case, would every single particle of paper that was separated a work of art in itself? Or was the art what remained-- the shreds of the paper on the floor, the parts that clung to the hole still, and the memory of the man who had destroyed it..?

In my opinion, art is a combination of process and purpose, but the biggest part is not what is physical, but what takes place in the minds of the viewers. Art is the reactions people have to the physical piece. I suppose that's postmodern in its own right-- you have to be self aware of your own reaction to the piece in order for the meaning of the piece to exist in the first place. The art is in your own head, and the process by which you create the art is as much of the art if not more than the final piece that gets framed and hung somewhere. The art is what cannot be created or recreated-- your initial feelings and the process of the artist. The final piece is a sort or memory of the art; a logical conclusion.

Of course that brings in arts that don't create physical remnants, like dance or theatre. I feel those better highlight the importance of purpose in art. The performer is highly self conscious of the fact that they are doing art. Any movement done in the span of time considered a part of the performance is considered art. Let's go back to my first example of performance art. The artist enters the gallery and stands in front of the crowd. He bows. The act has begun. But he is still several paces from the work itself; the paper. He takes those paces and stands before it, contemplating his actions. Pause right there. The artist takes several paces. Are those steps considered art?

In a day to day context, those would just be steps. I'm sure that thousands of people have taken nearly identical steps in the exact same gallery. But the steps taken by the artist are special. They are a part of his work. Yes, they are necessary in order to get closer to the stunning act itself, but would we consider the introduction any less a part of the book than the climax? I suppose that the difference with performance art and dance is this postmodern idea: the creator is INCREDIBLY self aware. Each movement is meticulously planned-- you are aware if your actions on a level you wouldn't be in day to day life. Your actions have a purpose, an end goal, some kind of rhyme and reason. And that is the difference between what is and isn't art.