Art=Science?

Today in class the idea was presented that maybe we have no working definition of art because art is an ever changing thing. More and more different types of art are being discovered all the time and make a possible definition of art hard to pin point. One can argue that art is almost like the universe. So vast and big, there is still allot to be discovered. Stating this, however, makes one think, what is the universe? Much like art, the term the universe is something encompassing a large array of things and making an actual definition is very hard to do. A difference between the two; however, is when new things are discovered in the universe they get added to what is refereed to as the universe. New art forms also get entered into the category art but how is it possible if there is no definition of art? How does art attract people and observers when they don't really know what it is they are looking at and observing.

Therefore a question arises, the fact that art is so mysterious without a definition; is that what makes it appealing to people?

Art

Today in class we further discussed the ideas of Weitz. Weitz's stance on there being no definition of art arouses many feelings in observers of art. For me, I feel that art is better off not being defined. The fact that there is no workable definition of art in Weitz view makes art more appealing and more mysterious. However, a question arises in my mind as to if something is created and is there; i.e. art, then how can it not have a definition? Everything in existence has to have a definition. If it cannot be defined, then it is not real. An example that was stated in class was gaming. Gaming is capable of being defined on all levels. Even the most basic of activities such as doodling on a piece of paper in class. It may not be seen as gaming, but in actuality it is. Doodling may seem extremely trivial to some, however isn't that what gaming is, trivial?

Therefore, if art is undefinable, then what are we even talking about? If there is no actual definition, then why bother discussing or observing at at all?

Define Art

This week in the reading we discussed the ideas of Morris Weitz and his theory of the non definable art. Weitz argues that art is so open and large that is no actual way to define it. Despite this; however, in his attempt to justify the fact that art is incapable of bing defined, he almost gives it a working definition. First off, art is something that appeals to an aesthetic. We have discussed before that art can only be considered art if it is capable of appealing to the aesthetic values of the viewer or the producer. Art, however, is something that is pertaining to a physical thing. The representation that is being made is a replication of a physical thing. From the point of appealing to aesthetics, art can then be broken down into genre and then medium. The genre represents different types of art for example music and the medium represents a sub category within the genre; i.e. drums or other instruments.
From here is where the "definition" gets kind of fuzzy. It may seem obvious now that there is a somewhat functional definition of art here, however this almost limits what can be referred to as art. Almost anything can be art however, not everything can be functioned past that down to genre or medium. For example, styling hair. Styling your own hair is not considered art but having someone style your hair is. Without the work of it being done and accomplished by someone, it is really just an aesthetic.
Therefore, a question rises. If anything can be considered art but only some things can be functioned down  further, does that mean only true art is able to be a genre or medium of art?

Response

In response to Andreas post;A question I will leave you with, though, is if art is supposed to be the adult's way of expressing their "inner child", does this mean that children cannot create art? i do believe so actually. I would not argue that all art is an expression of an adults inner child. Sometimes, artists can convey deep desires that were created during their childhood through their representations of art, however that is not always the case. Sometimes artists create a work of art for the sole purpose of arousing an emotion they wish to arouse in observers and audiences. In response to the actually question I believe that children can create art but it is in the mind of the observer if what they are viewing is actually art.  

Instinct

Today in class we discussed the idea of instinct vs. thought. As many may be aware animals and humans alike, act out of instinct on many of their day to day activities. Acting out of instinct, in the case of animals, is in a way expressing the need and desire to survive. As mentioned in class, a bird makes a nest to protect its young and serve a safe shelter for it to lay its eggs. This is the bird acting out of instinct; doing what it deems appropriate to protect its eggs. Some may consider that nest that the bird has created to be a work of art considering the amount of energy it took on behave of the bird to create this nest. However, one can also argue that the fact that the bird was acting out of instinct or habit to create the nest makes it not a work of art. Art can be described as an expression of emotion and feeling from an artist through some work to inspire those emotions and feelings in an observer. The bird is doing nothing that the definition states so can it be considered art? I would argue yes because just because the bird is not trying to arouse emotions in other people or animals, does not mean that it is not capable of doing so.

Therefore a question arises, some considered non-aesthetically pleasing art to be bad art. Can animals express similar views?