Art: Is it definable?

What is Art? That is the question. We seek to understand, to know. But can a solid definition of Art ever be arrived at?

Weitz would argue not. Just as there can be no solid definition for what is a "game," the concept of Art is open, constantly evolving, and thus a universal definition would be, by necessity, impossible.

Is this really true? Does Art truly escape definition? There is certainly some validity to this claim. Let us explore it.

Reflecting back on every definition of Art we have looked at previously, each adds a dimension to this concept of Art. (As Freud did not contribute anything to the definition, he is irrelevant to the current discussion.) Plato and his copies of copies, Dewey and intentionality and nature, Tolstoy and communication of feelings - all of these certainly add to the discussion of what Art is, but none can really be exactly placed on Art.

Art can be said to fit every definition. And of course, as new types of Art are created, some critic somewhere will doubtless write a new definition of Art to fit in the new style.

Thus, Art is - gasp! - like a living thing, constantly evolving with the intellects of its creators, and constantly eluding a solid definition. Should we thus stop trying to define it? Absolutely not. It is this constant defining and re-defining that gives Art its nature. And while we will never have a truly solid definition for it... we can certainly try.