On, "What is art?"

I am sharing a journal entry on a discussion I had surrounding the definition of art. It gives my understanding of how one knows when to call something art or not art, and how I feel on the positive criticism or suggestions of offering only one definition to art as an object.

From, 01 May 2007

'I had a discussion yesterday with a student from the University of Pennsylvania (whose name currently escapes me), regarding the history of art and how one goes about defining what is and what is not art. It started with his denouncing contemporary artists and their works, and saying that they were reckless[ly created] and not visually appealing and therefore not art. He furthered this (dare I say ignorant) opinion with a comment that there lacked any form or traditional technique with modern art, and it was not of a 'gentleman's' view of art.

Art is, in its most basic and pure form, both objectified and subjected by individuals everywhere and anywhere. Criticism, either good or not good, must be accepted, and expected, but also scrutinized and contextualized to its time. However, a fine and historic line is often crossed when such criticism becomes ignorant and nonsensical by calling into question what is and is not art. Any person, of any varying degree of intellect, can decide what visual aesthetics are appealing to them, and those that are not - it is simply a matter of personal opinion and desire. As one begins to call into question the definition of art, though, they begin to tackle an issue long left equally unresolved by the artists, critics, and the public. If we were able to give a clear-cut, concise and unambiguous definition as to what makes art art, then the future production of art would cease to exist because there will no longer be a need to change with the time and create newly stimulating artwork. It, too, might even bring into context a need to re-define past "masterpieces", if they do not fit with this chosen definition of art. To word it more simply: One may say he does or does not like the visual appeal of some certain forms or creation of art, or that he does not understand its construct or meaning; but one can never say that art is not art. Instead, art is arbitrarily defined by the actions of the artists, and the changing of the times in connection with public appeal. And so it is not we, as individuals or groups, who define art, but rather art acts as the sole mechanism for its own definition across time.'