We can do better than that by opening a dictionary, and we can develop a richer understanding when we consider more than a one line definition.
Isaac,
I was trying to start off with a broad, fundamental and inclusive definition that applies in all circumstances, regardless of differences of opinions, likes and taste, and regardless of the various types and styles of art.
For example, let's consider the definitions in your dictionary to which you provided a link above. They all refer to man-made objects of some sort that are beautiful or express ideas or feeling, such as images, music, sculptures, paintings, drawings, acting, dancing etc.
Is there likely to be any contributor to this forum who is not aware that the above are, or can be, forms of art? Is it likely that anyone is not aware that art is supposed to be beautiful in some respect or expressive of some sort of feeling or idea?
The problems arise when attempting to categorize specific examples of the above-mentioned objects as art. Some folks might legitimately claim that photographs are not art because the camera does most of the work and merely records the patterns of light passing through the lens.
Others might claim that Andy Warhol's paintings of cans of beans and cans of soup, are not art because they are too commonplace and representational, like a photograph. Yet others will claim that certain abstract paintings consisting of paint thrown at, or onto a canvas, are not art.
What I am attempting in my one-line definition is to describe a quality which all art possesses. That art should be beautiful is not necessarily a defining quality because beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.
We could elaborate on your dictionary definition along the lines, "The making of objects that are considered to be beautiful
in the eyes of at least one person, but such a definition might then include all objects that have ever been made. It's quite possible that at least one person could examine a screw in a hardware shop, hold it up to the light and declare, "That's really beautiful. What a marvelous piece of art."
The quality which I find to be common in all art is it's non-utilitarian purpose, at least in the modern meaning of the word. Centuries ago, before mechanisation and industrialisation, art was often just a synonym for skill. The hand-weaving of garments was considered an art.
In our modern era I see a movement away from such practical concerns, regarding what is considered to be art. The finest form of art is often considered to be music. Why should that be the case? Is that merely a matter of taste? For example, "I enjoy music more than I enjoy paintings, therefore music is a finer or higher form of art than painting, in my opinion", or is there some other defining quality about music that might give reason for it to be considered the highest form of art?
The 19th century English essayist and art critic, Walter Pater, wrote, "All art constantly aspires to the condition of music". What did he mean by that?
I would say that the key to understanding what he meant is provided by my definition of art as something which has a non-utilitarian purpose. There is nothing more non-utilitarian than music. It is pure abstraction, purged of all the literal meaning that usually exists in other forms of art, such as photography, poetry, narrative, painting and architecture etc.
I rest my case.
