From what I've seen during my life time Art, to me, must simply be defined as something that invokes joy or satisfaction to the one who created it. I thought it would be cool to go to the Seattle Art Museum when I was there working for a week and OMG was it a transition of an artist of wonderful renown and skill to stuff that a two year old could do and was obviously done by an adult. I had never seen any of Sargent's work, never heard of the man yet was profoundly glad that I had happened to chance the museum why his work was on exhibit there. But elsewhere in the same building I'm wondering why the hell they have a square consisting of four squares: two black, one white and one red, on the floor? And why in the hell am I being forced to look at a squire piece of canvas that was wasted by someone splattering paint over it for an hour? To get into a obviously reputable art museum someone had to feel it was art. If it were a two year old I would praise the child... but as adults did it, I'm still confused over their choice in this.
And though art does not require training in a specific field to be appreciated, the training in that field does change the way one looks at the art and therefore the appreciation.
Take in example modern music. Though I am not an awesome musician as I believe Grdell to be, I had as a teacher for 5 years one of the best jazz fusion drummers in the world. I'm not going to drop his name because you probably have to be among the jazz professionals to even know it. But during the early stages of learning I was into bands like Poison, Guns' n Roses, Kiss. Very popular bands however not very impressive to a jazz musician because the music is very simple. That simplicity and the ratio between untrained musicians and trained ones are WHY they are so popular and why there is less of a following of Jazz that has complex rhythms that can often jar an untrained ear. There are among musicians bands bands identified as a 'musican's band'. Some of these 'musican's bands' have main stream success, such as Yes and Dream Theatre with their more simple pieces but those aren't the ones that you will find a musican having an orgasm about. Now when I listen to music I have to decide if I'm going to listen to music as a 'fan' or as a 'musican'. Where once I could bounce up and down to Poison all day as a 'musican' it makes me cringe. I can almost never listen to Dream Theatre as a 'fan' because their complex rhythms and chord changes don't always flow from one point to another and you have to understand their training to understand their reasoning for their progression.
When you are trained in a specific field you tend to look at the objects in your line of training with more depth and more of a critical eye. I can draw and paint, though i haven't worked on this skill. Since i haven't, I tend to dismiss something that I can replicate. When I look at drawings I look for proportion. I suck at hands and noses so look at those first and normally judge how good a person is by how well they have accomplished those two items. When I listen to music I listen to either how simple and catchy the melody is to the complete opposite of how complicated the rhythm structure is, how layered and complex can the musicians get the music and not sound like a pile of noise. I judge writing on the detail of description, consistency and the ability to keep me interested as I wait for the writer to reveal the hook.
But those are art forms I am familiar with. I can look at carvings and tell you what i think is pretty and what I don't like, but I can't tell you what of what I don't like should be a masterpiece simply because the skill required in making it was intense.
I think I'm going to quit now before I start meandering, but experience/training, even lack of it, shapes what an individual sees as 'art' as well as their view of quality of said art.