Critcism and Art

In his blog, Griffin asked: Is there a 'barrier' between art and nonart? Do things have to be one or another? or are things more muddled then that, and can they be mixed?

Like Griffin said, art is a very complicated subject. You cannot, or a critic cannot, say that art is simply art or non-art. There is no simply "barrier" as Griffin said or a simple qualities or group of qualities that make art or non-art. There is just a group of critics of a group of people who call themselves a critics that decide what is good and bad. In this collection of critics, there is a million of contradicting and contrasting opinions and decisions on art. Even in my own humble and amateur blog, I have probably contradicted myself probably a bunch of times. I cannot make up my mind of what is good and what is bad and what definition is more right than the other. I cannot decide whether I agree more with Dewey or Tolstoy and even when I do agree more with one or find one more enlightening than the other, later I might contradict myself in a blog. I am sure this must happen all the time also in the dignified art world and with the dignified art critics. So therefore there is no clear cut or cut and dry definition of art and so there is no cut and dry separation between non-art and art. Furthermore, no one can even decide WHEN art is nonetheless WHAT art is. So who can even decide if art is art when it is created or when someone appreciates it. So is more important to decide when is art or is it more important to decide what is art?