A few years back, in a discussion thread on a site that I can't remember, someone was discussing an art show in which one of the pieces was a bathroom urinal. and was wondering whether a urinal could really be considered a work of "art." I've never been much interested in art "theory" myself, so most of the discussion was either too boring or too complicated (same thing really, I guess) for me to bother with. Being a helpful sort of guy by nature, though, I eventually piped in with the suggestion that, while it's quite possible for a urinal to be a work of art, as soon as someone takes a piss in it it's just a urinal.
Related to the above (in fact, damn near the same thing), I recall a heated conversation I once had with a good friend who was very interested in the latest fashion trends, and would often argue that fashion was a form of art. Probably the only thing I find more annoying than a discussion on art theory is a discussion about fashion. Or so I thought up until that point. This was a discussion about art theory and fashion. Anyway, my friend, growing somewhat exasperated with me (unfashionable, non-artistic rube that I am), finally asked me if I thought it were possible for a coat made out of meat to be a work of art. (Really, it makes me wonder sometimes. Urinals, coats made out of meat--can these people not think of better examples to make their points? I can imagine one of these art theory/fashion-world types working in an appliance store and, in a spiel on the efficiency of gas stoves, managing to drop Hitler's name.) "A coat made out of meat?" I replied. "Sure, that could be art. Until someone put it on."