1) Describing but one aspect of a thing does not define it, exhaust it or encompass it. For example. "American is where you get hamburgers"
2) Art is not always a mode of communication.
Philosophy for Philosophers
When you say not under observation you mean, as the jargon goes, they are not deemed as art episodically. If I say the piece of driftwood looks heavy, this has nothing to do with art and the driftwood is nothing more that this, with an emphasis on weight. But if I say it is beautiful, then by my word it becomes art, at least for me, perhaps others as well. This means that art is what is taken up AS art, and I recall something similar from an aesthetician named Arthur Danto (think clouds in the sky, There is a camel, there a turtle, and so on. We summon these into existence by a mere perceptual interpretative act.Jan Sand:
All things are not under observation. Art is when someone points to something to convey an idea that fits into an art category, When an artist consciously creates something as art that makes it a communicable element. Andy Warhol made an ordinary soap box art when he indicated it should be worth considering for its physical characteristics but also as a product of our culture and what it might convey under that consideration. A sunset is not beautiful until someone perceives its delightful characteristics and how it might be a symbol of an ending of a day. To someone blind, a sunset cannot be beautiful. But, from the point of an observer in space, the sun doesn't set. One must be on the spinning planet to see a sunset. It is as much a product of the observer as it is of the sun and the spinning planet and that can make it considered as a kind of art. If it is observed by an Earth bound astronomer who views it scientifically it might be acceptable to not consider it as art.