Turner Prize 2010 - Is it Art?

As Susan Philipsz picks up her £25,000 reward for her exhibit of Lowlands Away and will scuttle back to her Berlin base to sing a few more songs in her soft Glaswegian accent, we must pose the distinctly unoriginal question: 'What is Art?'. Every year the Turner Prize causes controversy, and Philipsz's idea of creating sculpture through sound (which she discusses here: BBC News - Turner Prize: Susan Philipsz wins with Lowlands Away) is decidedly more groundbreaking than my question, and therefore merits winning the award, set up to 'celebrate new developments in contemporary art'. The OED defines 'art' as :

'The expression or application of creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting, drawing, or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Also: such works themselves considered collectively. Cf. a work of art at work n. 14.'

Does Philipsz work fit into this category? The Stuckists, opposed to modern, conceptual art, think not. They class her work as music, and not art. However, the way the dictionary defines it does not require art to be in visual form, merely that 'typically' it is. This is undeniable, but surely progress is necessary for the development of art, and this entirely new technique taps into our emotions in an entirely different way to a conventional performance of song or art, because it prompts the observer to engage with the building, its acoustic qualities, the song itself and the emotion of the lyrics. Because of the preconceived mindset one has when in an art gallery, there is a different reaction when engaging with Philipsz work (I hardly know what verb to use here; surely I can't describe us as 'viewers', perhaps we are 'listeners' or maybe 'engagers') than if it were displayed in a different setting, or a different context. Therefore, we become increasingly aware of it, we are thrown off balance, our artistic appreciation balancing as though on an artistic wobble board.

Inevitably there will be those who critique her work and dismiss it as 'not art', but surely if it is beautiful enough and engages us enough in the emotional power, it fits in with the dictionary definition? It could be an error to try to define art in such concrete terms, but I fear it is necessary when arguing against such bigoted ideas as those of the Stuckists, who refuse to progress with the art world. As the authority chosen by the organisers of the Turner Prize the judges Isobel Carlos, Andrew Nairne and Polly Staple have selected Philipsz as the winner. In this act they, and those who selected them to judge, have irrefutably defined Lowlands Away as art. No-one is required to respect the Turner Prize as the most important in all of art, but they must accept both its existence and its legitimacy in its own field, and perhaps instead the Stuckists should invest their energy in establishing a contrasting award for the least progressive piece of artwork created by any British artist under 50. Let's see how exciting that would be.