What is a work of art?

 Quotes, I have chosen a very interesting article on the website:  filosofi.unblog.fr
Thank candy crush
(The English translation is done by google)

Is there something common to the monuments of the Acropolis, one symphony, a Picasso painting, to a compression Caesar, a theater Boulevard, and the poetry of Baudelaire …?

Nothing in appearance.

Except that in all cases, it appears that always three elements:

A work of art is the product or the effect of the activity or project of a human is called an artist.
Its characteristic of addressing an audience (big or selected) on which it has certain effects, such as emotions, fads, fun and production of speech, assembly is most often linked to beauty works.

. It is an object in relation to other objects in the world in which it seems to say something: it is common to argue that art represent and / or express something. This would mean that they refer to something other than themselves.
Why some reputed art today do not they have always been? Why are some items that were not originally works of art such as cave paintings, masks, ornaments … the are they now? Why some, losing their original function: ritual, religion, magic, they acquired the status of art and not others? What justifies this change of status?

In short, if in order to say that an object is a work of art, it is necessary that the three elements of the artist, the public and a report of the work to the real are present, recognize that these three elements do not appear simultaneously and harmoniously.

This is where the presence of one of the three cleared to drive the other two becomes an object of art.
This is because such an object is a beautiful public will say that it is a work of art and therefore that its author is an artist. This is because the author of such a work is an artist that found him of beauty or aesthetic qualities. This is because an object is or represents expressive strength with something that will be required for a work of art by a public and it is because he has the qualities that will eventually find beautiful.
But if one of the three causes the other two do-it is not one which is determinant?
Here we have three possible views and three questions by which it may be possible to know what a work of art:

1) Point of view of the artist, of creation. And if a work of art, it was primarily and essentially what an artist?

2) Point of view of the viewer, of the effect. And if a work of art, it was ultimately only what is socially required for such? but since there is no criterion without trial and that these criteria are not arbitrary or otherwise unique viewers judgments would not be so often converging,

3) Viewpoint of the work as it represents or expresses something. What is an object to represent or speak for a work of art?

Caution: do not confuse the standpoint of the essence and that of our assessments, confuse art as a whole with those we love, believe the works that we do not like not are works of art: you do not have to love everything that is done in the matter and should not reject out of art works simply because we do not understand them or that we face.
However, nothing prohibits, in all the works of art, to establish a hierarchy to distinguish the works of art masterpieces. Only, again, it will be wary of taking our immediate assessments for a relevant criterion: the masterpiece is not necessarily what pleases us is the excellence for a work of art. This brings us to the need to define the essence of the artworks.
We can define the work of art by the artist and thus say that a work of art is what makes an artist. It is all the more tempted to answer in this way the question that some works do not seem immediately be works of art and are held only because their authors for artists.