My definition of art.

Philosophers, critics, and artists, and college students throughout the centuries have been pondering the great question of: What is Art? So, since all the great thinkers contemplated this, I decided to give this question some thought to see if I could illuminate anything.  What I came up with satisfies me personally, but I'm sure that there are others who will disagree with me.

My view of art is that art comes from the idea of the human desire to capture something and to place it onto some kind of medium. Whether it be capturing a scene from nature on a photograph, or the attempt to capture the images you saw in a dream, these will both be considered art.  Now, the critiques for this theory are probably very similar to the argument from intent, which basically boils down to: If everyone can create art by just attempting to capture something, then anybody can do it. My response to that is: Of course! Art is not something that only great artists can create! Art is something that even the most uncreative can make. If it was any other way then Art would be exclusive and prohibited to the common person, which would be a horrible definition that I would not want mankind to adopt.

So, my question is really more like a challenge to my fellow classmates. Can you find anything wrong in this theory? And if so, can you please tell me what flaws there are? I would love to hear objections to see if I can explain or change my theory.