Art seems to become more ambiguous in the sense then, yet it is so hard to limit the concept.
But I've always wondered, in paintings, and movies, war is depicted as art, but taken directly in its own medium, it is not.
I suppose it is due to its sinister nature, since the infantry men has to endure the result, whether a comfortable person sitting in the comforts of his country, like me, thinks it is aesthetic or not.
My ambiguous "criteria" for war was an expression that engages the observer, and draws them in, and I thought I understood war as a face of humanity, the primal monster within humanity being expressed.
I saw it as a way for future civilization to look back and see the effects and the emotions that partook with the carnage, and possibly learn.
I imagine that is why the average interviewee can not consider war as art, in its direct format of death, blood shed, and the epitaph of frailty that is part of being human.