After a semester of art history one would think the answer would be clearer. In different periods, art can be very closely defined. Artists were often discouraged from being unique and expected to copy the masters.
If art were this way today, it would be much simpler to know what is worthy of being claimed "art" but our ever growing minds and progression to uniqueness makes this simply impossible.
But does that mean art in this day cannot be art unless it is entirely original? Is there even an original thought left?
To those questions, I have no real answer. I can hardly even say my own work can be considered art. I can follow techniques, express emotions, and create beautiful things, but none of those necessarily make me an "artist".
And for that matter what makes an artist?
Andy Warhol and Jeff Koons rarely touch their own work. They are the idea behind the art, but hire a team of people to create it. And these two names are highly recognizable in the art world.
The same goes for Renaissance masters. They would often only put on the final touches of portraits then sign it as their own work. And this isn't something that these artists hide, it's not some big plagiarism conspiracy, but rather accepted in the art community.
I won't pretend to be the authority on the subject, but I have come to my own understanding of what art is. I think that it is anything that evokes an emotion in a person. That may be the artist and not meant for anyone else to understand or even see. Or it may be the viewer.
Art can be anywhere, film, music, print, fashion, nature, it's an infinite concept.
After reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, I've come to find that some things like art and quality, are a lifelong struggle to define, but a true definition will never exist nor should it. Defining either would fall short of what the words stand for.
