The last couple of days saw me in Barcelona, working very hard and getting very little sleep. I visited once as a youth; quite fortunate, really, as this Photoshop CS3-beta-created panorama was about the closest I got to the city this time around – we barely had time to sprint to the Sagrada Familia and back. There are some more photos here.

It was while here that I came up with a slightly more sophisticated version of my definition of 'what is art'. Up to now, this was best summed up as "if you call it art, it's art", but by this definition I could call a paving slab – in situ, I mean, just part of a pavement – art, which I think many people would have a problem with. Theory 2.0 – and I'm not claiming this is original; it's just original to me, and may have/probably has been thought before – is that art is "anything created with the express purpose of being art". This usefully excludes a paving slab on a pavement, but allows for a paving slab to be shown in a white space gallery as part of an artist's reaction to or dialogue with his or her environment. Discuss.