args

It is impossible to define art

No definition of art can be really objective; there will never be a consensus. However, just because it's impossible to get everyone to agree on its definition doesn't mean that every definition of art is equally valid. I wish the debate topic were worded more specifically. If the question you're posing is whether art can be perfectly defined so that no one will disagree, it's basically impossible for me to argue my side, and this could never be an interesting discussion. However, I guess I'm hoping that you wanted to debate a more interesting question, which is whether art can be defined well, just not necessarily perfectly. My personal definition of art, one that many people agree with to some extent, is that art is expression. Beauty can enhance art, and in many genres of art, beauty is an integral ingredient, but I agree with you that beauty is certainly not a prerequisite characteristic for something to be considered art. One way to see how I arrive at my definition of art is to compare a beautiful piece of art with something else that is indisputably a piece of art, but not beautiful, and try to figure out what they have in common. It's easy to think of beautiful art, so I'll let you imagine your favorite example, and for the nonbeautiful piece of art, I'll pick Picasso's "Guernica": http://www.artquotes.net... Guernica is certainly not aesthetically beautiful. Its figures are distorted, it's monochromatic, and especially if you know the story behind it (it represents the 1937 bombing of a Spanish town by the Nazis), it does not evoke pleasant thoughts. Yet hardly anyone would argue that Guernica is not art. Why is it art, though? Because it evokes thoughts, because it is Picasso's chosen vehicle for expression, and it works, it brings the viewer to Picasso's mindset. The main criticism of my definition of art is probably that it's too broad. I can understand this reaction. You might say to me, "Hey dullurd, I was doodling the other day in my notebook, I drew an anthropomorphic hotdog with a moustache, are you really telling me that's art?" I would have to say yes, it is art. I think this kind of criticism is based on a implicit definition of art that is a lot worse that the one I'm putting forward. Note that my definition of art says nothing about its quality. Just because something is expressive doesn't make it good/high art. I would then ask you on what grounds are you so certain that your goofy hotdog isn't art? I mean, I'd probably call it very bad/low art, but if you want to say it isn't art at all, you've got some explaining to do. I'm guessing that you would at least instinctively want to say something about the fact that it isn't beautiful, or that it didn't seem to take much time and effort to create. It's understandable that these arguments would come to mind. People inherently appreciate beauty and effort. However, we've both already agreed that beauty is not a necessary ingredient for art. And as far as effort goes, think about photography. Certainly photographs are art, but they take minimal effort, the push of a button, to actually create. While time and effort make it much more likely that a piece of art will be good/high art, they aren't prerequisites either. I could say more, but I think this is good for now. Looking forward to your response.