In which Natalie rambles on about what art even is really, because Marxism..?

I found this reading really round about and confusing, so I figured the "picture" (let's be honest I only ever use quotes) I would use for this should be something straight to the point and simple. 

Perhaps this is a bit trivial, but art has come up quite a bit in our discussion and reading of Marxist criticism and I found it pretty interesting.  Warning: this is about to get philosophical fast. 

The thought has crossed my mind before, but the Benjamin reading (especially VII) talks about whether or not photography and film are art and it really bothers me.  Defining something like art is pretty much impossible, but does the intention behind a photograph it make it art? And if it does, is the subject of the photo art as well? Where do we draw the line? If I accidentally take a picture (i.e. one taken without intention) can it still be art? Does there need to be a degree of separation between what is and the art we turn it into? Is a lens all it takes to elevate the mundane to classification as art? These are just the thoughts running through my head after reading this, because it's paragraph week. Alas, I am all questions and no answers.  I'm not sure this super relates back to Marxist theory but it's all about economics, which is all about choices, and I think art is a choice and labeling something as such definitely constitutes a choice... So basically economics is everything and we should consider it when reading and analyzing literature. Yay Marxist criticism!