In my professional opinion, pretty much so anything can be considered art, especially if it makes a statement.
The statement of this? I AM OF THE INTERNET. THE INTERNET IS NOT BOUND BY THE TRADITIONAL RULES OF COMPOSITION AND COLOR USE. THE INTERNET MAKES ITS OWN RULES.
So what’s next? A series of pictures of David Hasselhoff standing on scenic shorelines alongside an Ice Cream Sunday? Wait…
Kagato: No.
Killmore: Sundae.
Oscar Wilde saw that all art was necessarily a copy. In this modern age, we have since learned that all art is necessarily a crudely shooped copy.
.
Well, yeah, it isn’t art if it’s “shopped.”
If you accept that everything with an artistic intent is art, we can go on ridiculing people for making lousy/horrible/EQ-reducing art and be content.
it looks more like some kind of inside joke.
In the loose definition of art, everything is an art; like everything is a science. I’d classify this as digital montaging/collaging.
Marvel hero (?) Deadpool would consider it art!!
(You see, he’s obsessed with Bea Arthur. AND he’s crazy.) 
that is complete bullshit. if something has a losse definition it doesnt mean it’s completely objective or even arbitrary. you cant just pile up two stones and take a dump on it and call it art just because you feel like it.
Art can be anything, or rather anything can be art, but it helps if it was intended to be art in the first place. Conceptual art may not look like art, but there’s some interesting theory behind some of the weirdo stuff. Gotta give it credit for at least trying something different. Obviously sculpture, painting, drawing etc are more universally accepted as art forms.
Hay! That’s even butter.
The way I look at art is if there was some guided attempt at creating something meaningful by the creator, successfully delivers the creator’s intent, and inspires others as well (for reasons other than a quick imitation for profit, though gaining from the replication isn’t completely out of the question, it just can’t be the sole intent).
Well, there’s a Turner prize winner who puts his paintings on elephant shit if it helps.
I meant loose as in the phrase, “the art of (subject);” which is acceptable for pretty much all subjects, just like the phrase, “the science of (subject).” It’s even been written, “the art of science,” and, “the science of art.” The word’s definition started out as a catchall for any skill back in the heyday when words were thrown left and right, didn’t it? Some people view life as a work of art, a masterpiece, the “grand design.” Now, in a court of law or debate, the word “art” would be more refined and strict and not viewed this way. Take the statue from Rocky III (if you know the movie). It was placed in front of an art museum in the movie. It’s a 500+ pound bronze statue. After the movie ended, there was a giant debate about whether or not it was art and eventually it was deemed a “movie prop” and moved. Motion pictures are considered a form of art by many, so why wouldn’t a piece of the movie be considered a piece of art; especially one that’s a form of art by itself, a sculpture? I mean, this sounds like what Gila-Monster is saying, “it helps if it was intended to be art in the first place.”
It’s common for a word that isn’t refined to be taken to the extreme. Like the word music, or the genres of music, or the word religion, etc. You can spend hours debating those words and what fits into them, but you can’t change the fact that the words have become as “loose” as whores because people kept using them all over the place.poop