-But isn't this definition inherently flawed? How can one word define itself? That is like saying, "When I build this chair, I want to be be furniture. It must embody these completely abstract qualities of furnitureness. And, why do I want to be considered furniture? Well..."
B. often, though not necessarily, made to communicate, from the artist outward and/or from the piece to the audience
-Does this mean outsider art, notebook doodles, elephant paintings, and hallucinogen-inspired wall drawings may not be "art?" Those "artists" probably were not trying to convey a specific message. But, if even one viewer receives a message from those pieces, they are considered art? How valid is a message unto a viewer when the artist did not intend one? Doesn't that say more about the viewer than the art piece?
C. something designed to be aesthetically, emotionally, and/or intellectually striking
-Again, doesn't this vary by the viewer? Does this mean that whether or not something is art depends on who is looking at it? It's not a universal yes or no? By this clause, couldn't I disagree with the universally accepted definition as Starry Night as being artwork?
FYI Merriam-Webster defines "art" as:
- Main Entry:
- \ˈärt, ərt\
- Middle English, from Old English eart; akin to Old Norse est, ert (thou) art, Old English is is
- Main Entry:
- Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
- 13th century
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
art of making friends>2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning , scholarship3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill art of organ building>4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects ; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art5 aarchaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter