Words encapsulate and transmit meaning. A word without a meaning others can understand is useless. I’ve heard some say that art is whatever you say it is; if that’s the case, then I see no reason to ever use the word. I want the word art to be useful, so I strive to give it a useful definition.
However, I will concede that art is difficult to define. Art is experiential, meaning that its value extends less from its material components and more from the audience’s interaction with it. Clearly, art has subjective qualities, so a useful definition of art must account for this. Despite this subjectivity, I’ve attempted to eliminate or at least reduce matters of personal preference from my proposed definition; in other words, art that I dislike is still art, just as an edible but unpleasant meal is still a meal.
The act of defining something is partly an act of exclusion, which can lead to uncomfortable situations. But I want to make it clear that just because something isn’t art doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable or beautiful; it just means that it isn’t art. Scientific research isn’t artistic, but it’s extremely valuable. I don’t believe that a tree is necessarily a work of art, but trees are often quite beautiful.
Ultimately, I want to define art because I want to understand art more fully. I believe that one must determine what art is before one can determine its purpose. Perhaps understanding that purpose will enable me and others to create art that better fulfills it.
