Intention

Today in class we discussed different peoples views of what art is. During this discussion the idea was brought forth that what someone considers to be art really just matters on what the artists intention for the piece of work to be was. Therefore the concept that if someone considers something to be art, than in return that something is art. This raises a very interesting question. If someone says something is art, than virtually anything can be art. For example, an artist collects a small collection of oddly pointed branches from a nearby forest. He drops them in a heap on the floor; takes a step back and says, "This is art," then by this rational, it is art.
Skeptics can argue against that stating that just because someone says that what they have constructed or accomplished is art, then it doesn't necessarily mean that that is art. Certain criteria is to be met in order to actually be considered art. One can argue that art is something that is or at least ought to be aesthetic in some way shape or form. To be aesthetically  pleasing the piece of work must be moving to the viewer in some way shape or form. If what the artist has created appeals to the senses and is influential enough to move someone than it can be argued as being art.

Therefore, a question arises for those that may read this. Will a clear cut line ever be drawn on what is art and what is not; without regard to aesthetics, or will works of art just become more and more ridiculous and simplistic as time goes on?