art is subjective, yes, but as such it is subject to objective definable criteria which enables the expression of subjective thoughts feelings and emotions to be communicated to another.

For communication to occur there has to be an agreed system of signals which can represent identifiable feelings in both the artist and the audience. Duchamp warned us that art was becoming too subjective by exhibiting his pissoir, and in danger of failing in it's principle aim: to communicate.

When the message becomes unclear and misunderstood, or worse unintelligble then nothing has happened, and the great fig hasn't been moved on. Art must be allowed ultimate freedom, so no act should be considered 'wrong', merely 'working' or 'not working' - when 'working' means the successful communication of an idea, thought or emotion.

If Art is an identifiable condition as you say then depending who looks at the items at the tip depends on whether they're art or not.
The subject is subjective, surely?

Apollinaire said:

"come to the edge"

it is too high

"come to the edge"

we may fall

"come to the edge"

and they came

and he pushed

and they flew

The key is: does it have to be in a gallery to be art, if so is it art? IE: a bed is a bed in a bedroom, in a shop or in the street, in a gallery it is still a bed, except that someone has labelled it art. If everything can be so labelled 'ART' then art ceases to exist as such. ART is an identifiable condition, so if it is in a gallery, or in a bedroom, or discarded in a field it can still be seen as ART. A tip has a broken bed, a broken scooter and a torn piece of A4 paper with a drawing of a cat on it - which one is ART?

Interesting points raised by the Stuckists.

I suppose what they're really saying is; no matter how much you polish it, a turd is still a turd.

But then again, beauty is also supposed to be in the eye of the beholder...