Consider an example of an artist who has had a transcendent experience, say while meditating.  She then paints a canvas in order to help her reach this mental state when she stares at it.  A friend of the painter, an art historian, declares it a masterpiece of minimalist art – and it is, in fact, beautiful – despite the intended use that will, be different than for a work of art.  Suppose she intends to destroy it when it no longer works as a tool for her mediation.  Can the painting be a work of art in spite of her having made it exclusively for a personal use?  Or consider another hypothetical case.  An accomplished artist declares himself, from this point in time, to be no longer an artist.  He leaves his gallery, severs all relations with the art world, and yet continues to make useless, art-like objects.  His new objects continue to evolve and have no obvious dissimilarities from his previous products but he makes them for different, non-utilitarian, contemplative, or decorative, reasons.  Can he continue producing objects as he has in the past and be exempt from the category of artist?  Perhaps whatever this individual has said about being an artist does not affect what he makes.  Perhaps his intentions and motivations play no part.  He may not be able to determine the meaning of his future production of objects, as long as the objects adhere to the standards of excellence that he has attained previous to his declaration.

We can contrast the two cases above with the intentions of an artist who, with permission from the proprietors, places indiscriminate trash in a gallery.  The trash might be accepted as an “artwork” and examined for his non-formal motives, such as his disdain for the art market and the hierarchy of art professionals.