Here are some quick thoughts in reference to Ajay's questions on art. I think a lot of what constitutes a work as "art" has to do with context and intentionality. Certainly the nude sushi could have a place as art, but you have to consider the context under which this action is performed. That is, what is surrounding this event and helping determine its meaning.

We also have to consider that we are dealing with language. Trying to define what art is within the confines of language might tell you more about the structure of the culture and language than it will of art.

We should also consider who has a vested interest in the definition of art (with a capital A) and that is the art market. Consider for a moment who are the gatekeepers of the art world and why they might have an interest in holding access to the very definition of art.

Does a work of art not remain a work of art if a tangible use is discovered for it? Well, this idea has been crushed for a while, with the help of Marcel Duchamp's ready-mades.

My time is up... we can discuss this subject later in more detail later.