Despite how enduring this question is, I believe the definition of "art" is quite simple:

Art is anything purposely created through intelligence or emotion.

Paint-by-numbers are art. Tools are art. Shacks are art. Food is art. Web sites are art. Urinals are art. Mathematical proofs are art. Nearly everything you have ever bought was, in a way, art.

Using this definition, the difficult thing to define is not what is art, but what is "good" art. The value of art depends on the degree to which it encompasses the things that make it art. Those are emotion, intellect or a combination.

Does the art make us question our perceptions, such as Rene Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe?"

Does it force an emotional reaction such as Nick Ut's "Huynh Cong Ut?"

Artist merit is, of course, extremely subjective. Some people have a more powerful emotional reaction to Elvis on Velvet than the Mona Lisa. Still, questions like these can be used to help evaluate art.

This manner of evaluation is much more valuable than the most popular current method, which is chiefly based on the dollar amount of auction bids.

Some readers may note that my definition does not account for skill level. This is because skill only applies in that it shows the elevated purposefulness of the artist - a factor of intellect. This is vitally important. Art history is full of highly skilled painters or draftsmen who are lousy artists.

Learn more about this author, Matthew Christopher.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Attempting to define art?
We want to hear your view. Write now!