So what is art anyway?

Hey Philosophical Kari:

I couldn't resist your hanging curveball of a comment about is architecture art. I'll return the comment and broaden it by posing, "What is art?"

You cite Aaron of godofthemachine's post where he offers the following definition of art:

It is a technical term, referring to things that are intended soley as objects of contemplation.

His definition has three qualifiers: (1) it is an object and (2) it must invoke contemplation in the viewer and (3) that is its sole purpose.

I won't offer a definition as I'll be honest... I don't have one! However, I can see a few problems with his definition.

First, in my mind, contemplation seems a largely intellectual exercise. I would say that art can also work at the level of emotion in that art can have evocative or provocative powers.

Second, contemporary art is busting the boundaries of that narrow definition because installation art often incorporates CDs playing music/sounds on an repeat loop, televisions with video clips and some even incorporate aromas. Thus, art is no longer limited to objects.

Thirdly, I'm not sure I like to limit art with the "soley" qualification. By his definition, architecture is not art because architecture has utilitarian functions.

His definition is also very "observer" limited. I'm sure artists might like a definition where they retain control. For instance, my dad (trained at several art institutes on the GI Bill post Korean War), offered his definition:

Anything that is an expression of the individual's experience or creativity.

Hmmm...

Cheers,
Rene