The problematic relationship of art and concept

One of the commonest questions these days which ceaselessly pricks at the arms of all involved in the art world is 'What is art?'. It's just one of those irritating unanswerable questions that appears to be designed as a catalyst for conflict.
Well, I decided the easiest way to figure it out was to look it up in the trusty dictionary.
–noun

1.	the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2.	the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

or

n.

1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2. 1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
   2. The study of these activities.
   3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
   4. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.

Or

noun
1.	the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
2.	the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"*"I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"

What's interesting about these definitions is that they mention beauty or aesthetics as a main factor. Well we all know that's not necessarily true any more. Art can be as aesthetically unappealing as the artist pleases, Duchamp's urinal says it all.

Here's the meaning of conceptual art according to the British Council:

´Conceptual Art is an art of ideas, in which the artist's concept or idea constitutes the work (it is also often called 'Idea Art', 'Dematerialized Art' or 'Information Art'). Emerging in the late 1960s at a time of political protest Conceptual Art marked a major turning point in the history of art. Artists challenged the established conventions, authority and commercialisation of the art institutions and the emphasis on the precious commodity of the unique art object. The roots of Conceptual Art are in the Dada movement, and specifically the artist Marcel Duchamp, whose work and ideas first challenged the established definitions of art.

The term came to describe a wide range of artists and to be associated with a number of concurrent art trends and movements, including Land Art, Body Art, Performance Art, Video Art, Sound Art, and Installation Art, in all of which the concept takes precedent over the object, documentation of an event or action. Conceptual Art might consist of a statement, a set of instructions documenting how to make a work, or a photographic record or video of an event.

Conceptual Art soon became an international movement, associated with artists including: Keith Arnatt, Art & Language, Joseph Beuys, Marcel Broodthaers, Daniel Buren, Victor Burgin, Michael Craig-Martin, Gilbert & George, Hans Haacke, Joseph Kosuth, Sol LeWitt, Richard Long, Bruce McLean, On Kawara, Robert Smithson and Lawrence Weiner. By questioning and challenging traditional practices, media and cultural conventions Conceptual artists of the late 1960s and early 1970s influenced and inspired subsequent artists. Many artists from the 1980s onwards have employed and adapted the techniques and strategies of their predecessors to explore still further possibilities.'

So, my question (in fact I have an endless list of questions) is: is art a medium for concepts? or is the concept a medium for art? By this I mean why is an idea called art?
I recently went to a lecture given by a lady called Angelica Bertolucci whose profession is selling ideas to artists. She was adamant that she isn't an 'artist', merely a 'person with ideas'. Interesting, I thought. Does that mean she herself doesn't think ideas do not an artist make? Well, I'd have to agree with her. I think she probably has more self respect that the majority of 'conceptual' artists out there in recognizing that as she has no technical ability in the way of sculpting, painting etc. she therefore cannot be classed as an artist. Thereby, she manages to make a mockery of people who do call themselves artists, especially seeing as some of them actually buy her ideas!


At the time I was outraged, but not at those who take the credit for the fruits of her labour. I was mad as hell at the woman herself. I thought how dare she make a mockery of the integrity of the artist? But then I realized that I actually never thought that many artists these days had much integrity in the first place.

note* I have just found out (a week after I wrote this post) that the Angelica Bertolucci lecture was A FRAUD. Turns out she was an actress, and that the tutors just wanted us to think about it. So doesn't that just completely undermine my argument?? However, I guess it's still a realistic possibility that 'Angelica Bertolucci-s' exist, just, obviously, with different names.
It is, I suppose, just Artists (my tutors) once more making a mockery of others.