AbstractThe article seeks to explain what it means to say that an object has the status of being made art-like. I have reconstructed and analysed Ossi Naukkarinen and Yuriko Saito’s definition of artification and flagged up its methodological limitations. My conclusions serve as a starting point for describing the nature of artified objects, the way they are individuated, and how they persist. I consider the question of what can and what cannot be artified. Finally, I propose that artification be redefined in such a way as to render it informative on the grounds of the largest number of existing aesthetic theories of art.