Art and the Quotidian Object Response

I'm thinking about art and its question of limits like I think about the limits of our world. The idea of what art can and can not be is like thinking about the dimensions of our universe. The unknown vastness is comparable to the possibilities of art, it is just up to artists to push the boundaries. Is there an end of the road?

When is an art object not quotidian? When it is not considered art? When the quotation marks are removed?

Is Gabriel Orozco trying to capture the action of an object or trying to make it stuck in time? The photograph really changes a piece. Does an action become an object when it is photographed?

"It is the focus of an opaque, if suggestive, sensory experience. And it is this opacity that stimulates the free play of imagination and understanding." Margaret Iverson

How would an opaque sensory experience be different from a transparent sensory experience?

Iverson goes onto explain how each object suggests an opposite subject that is different from its appearance through reaction and inversion of our perception. Is she considering that nothing is what it seems? Does every object suggest something different and not obvious?