Cross-cultural Perceptions

Considering the lack of a universal, or even a clear definition of "art" in any culture makes it likely that there has to be an endless variety of different or competing conceptions of it. Although it is in our culture as American's to determine individualism, and therefore would make sense for American's to insist these differences, there is a universal trend as to what tends to be aesthetically pleasing, and what is not. But this is not a constant truth. Different cultures will conceptualize art differently based on differences in lifestyles, values, access to materials, and historic context. These differences create some distinctions as to what is and is not art based on cultural perception.
For example, what one culture creates as necessity, may be seen by another as having artistic intent. An example would be Egyptian hieroglyphics which to foreigners often look like intricate designs and symbols up for aesthetic contemplation where as ancient Egyptians may have looked at them as commonly as you read this sentence. At the same time, our perception of a urinal in an exhibition being art because it is "out of context" may seem obscure to someone from a third world country who has never seen indoor plumbing and therefore cannot see the difference between the Fountain exhibit and the actual restroom down the hall.
In this way, perceptions of art are dependent upon underlying factors both culturally and individually. There seems to be a basic cross-cultural understanding which humans share which allows us to generally recognize art, however it is not constant. Differences in culture can play a large role in this recognition.

Question:

Does the lack of a universal definition of art allow for art to be subjective? In other words, can something be art to me, but not to someone else?