The way I see it, if you intend for the work to be art, it's art.
That's why Marcel Duchamp's toilet signed R. Mutt is art. Never mind that it was ready-made.
So then, everything is art, right? No. It needs a sentient mind declaring it to be so.
Whether it is good or bad is up to the viewer.
See, there are two sides to the equation. The maker, and the viewer.
one makes, and the other is either moved, detests, applauds, or whatever by the work. It is the viewer that determines the quality of the art to them. So yes, the urinal signed by Marcel Duchamp IS art, but is it any good? That is the real question, not whether or not it IS art.
A final note. You know art can take on so many forms, but there's always an uproar when someone says digital art isn't fine art. I think people need to realize that fine art isn't a QUALITy that is placed upon art, but a FORM of art. Photographic art is protographic art, digital art is digital art, performance art is performance art. Fine art merely means that the materials used is paint, pencils, paper or canvas. It has nothing to do with the quality of the piece. Fine art can be bad too, even though it is "fine"
So that, in a nutshell is my definition of art. So when someone says to you, that's not art, tell them, yes it is, it's BAD, but it still is art. It's bad art. Or yes, it is, it's digital art. Or, yes, it's programmer art. it's BAD, but it's art.
That's my two cents.