# What's the point of art?



## Krisena (Jul 21, 2012)

Now that I've lured you into this thread with a somewhat misleading title, let me clarify: This is actually a thread about semantics.

My impression is that there is no set definition of art, at least, I can't get any concrete explanation of the term in any encyclopedia I've looked it up in, neither can some of my fellow philosphy or art students. My best friend has made his own definition of art, another friend of mine different one, even my old physics teacher once sacrificed a lecture to talk about art, and his way of defining it.

Despite the fact that no one seems to agree on what art is, people have debates about art all the time: What is art? Is this art? Am I more art than you? Can I eat art? Can art be my best friend? Etc. What bothers me about this is that how is it possible to discuss these things if everyone operates by their own definition?

Let's look at all the possible types of definitions I've been able to come up with so far:

1) Universal criteria for what constitues art, and the criteria is based on objective aspects of the «object» in question.
2) Universal criteria for what constitues art, and the criteria is based on your subjective experience of the «object» in question.
3) Subjective criteria for what constitues art, and the criteria is based on objective aspects of the «object» in question.
4) Subjective criteria for what constitues art, and the criteria is based on your subjective experience of the «object» in question.

Let's have a quick walk through the types. If the criteria for art is subjective, it's impossible to discuss what art is. If the criteria for art is universal, but based on your experience of the object in question, everyone knows what art is, but what is art depends on the person, and anything can be art. Lastly, if the criteria of art is universal, and the criteria is based on objective properties, that means that everyone can agree upon what art is, and they can discuss it in definite terms. The possible problem however, would be that this «universal criteria» needs to be so precise that anything that shouldn't be recognized as art, isn't ubrellaed under the term.

Now, in my opinion, types 3 and 4 are useless, but incidentally, that's the situation we're in. We might as well just throw the term «art» away, as it's impossible to commicate with a word that no one can agree on what means. I don't have any particular strong ties to the term art, and I would be perfectly happy to call everything a craft. Art mostly seems to be a word people adorn their tastes with anyways, and I've never really connected with that.

Enough exposition. I think we're at the core now. What is the point of the term «art»? Do we need it? What IS art?

I'm looking forward to reading your replies. Let this be an in-depth discussion.


----------

