An Attempt on Defining Art

Defining art is similar in defining other complex ideas like freedom, justice, beauty, etc. The problem for defining such concepts is that the concept itself branches out to other different disciplines and defining each and every one of them entails a need for perspective. Through out the ages, mean searched for how a thing is unique from other things. Similarly, they thought of how intangible concepts would be defined, be understood by all and be accepted by all regardless of any present force like gender, culture and environment.
Numerous dictionaries define art as “all creative human endeavors, excluding actions directly related to survival and reproduction”; “any product of the creative impulse, out of which sprang all other human pursuits”; “requires a creative and unique perception of both the artist and audience”; “skill required by experience, study, or observation”. The task of having a single definition of art seems to be impossible.
Art is mutually exclusive with the one who is attempting to define it. You may ask, what is art after all? The endless conversations would eventually lean to an answer: “it depends”. With myself, however, I could still define art. This kind of definition came to me during my Communication II class last year. And from thereon, I accepted it with my heart and with my mind. And I think that this would stipulate to me forever.

Something becomes art when it has subtleties, when it has hidden messages or concepts lurking behind it, when we have to figure what it is, when we do not understand it on the surface level, when it makes us think, when it gives us headaches, when it seems to have no solution and when it transforms the human mind into a machine fusing all his knowledge and experience in life. With all of these, I believe that the best artwork in the world is something argued by the scholars in deciphering its meaning, and, even better, something unresolved.