Art is a complex idea, and the concept of art has long been a subject of philosophical inquiry. Art has been viewed as expressiveness and form, mimesis or representation, and more recently by philosophers influenced by Martin Heidegger as the way in which a culture creates a medium for the expression of its ideas, emotions and values. Art has also been defined as the arrangement of conditions capable of affording an experience with a marked aesthetic character, or as a category that includes all arrangements intended to have this capacity (see the entry on Monroe Beardsley’s definition of art). More recent philosophies of art have taken a more hybrid approach to the definition, incorporating a broad and largely traditional concept of artistic properties along with some cultural and historical criteria for inclusion within the class of artworks.
What is the overall feeling or impression of the artwork? Is it serene and reflective; bold and confrontational; subtle and ambiguous; or humorous or satirical? Does the artwork have a particular tone of voice or style of language, for example, direct; informal; lyrical; illustrative; poetic; or abstract?
Is the artwork a depiction of a landscape or an interior space? What does it evoke of these places and their relationships to each other, for example, a sense of depth; a perception of movement; a sense of scale – imposing or dwarfed by its surroundings; a feeling of serenity or tension? Does the artwork explore movement, for example, multiple or sequential images; blurred or out-of-focus images; a scene frozen mid-action; kinetic art, etc.
Does the artwork use lines or other forms to impose structure, order and balance; or are the compositional elements haphazardly placed, without obvious purpose? Are the compositional elements symmetrical or asymmetrical? Does the artwork make use of overlapping, one point perspective, tonal modeling or spatial distortions (i.e. optical illusions)?
Has the artist made use of varying line thicknesses, lengths or styles, such as thick, loose, precise or erratic; scribbled or scrawled; sketchy or smooth; bold or delicate; geometric or flowing; jagged or spiky? What atmosphere, moods or emotions do these evoke for the viewer?
What was the original intention or purpose of the artwork when it was created? Was it designed to be aesthetically pleasing; expressive or communicational; commemorative, educational or promotional? Did the work have a specific patron or owner?
How has the artwork changed over time? This might include deterioration, wear and tear, changes to the environment or the appearance of the materials; additions, renovations or restoration by subsequent artists or viewers; natural, physical change through weathering, erosion and other environmental factors; changes caused by human interaction, including the effects of light and the movement of people; or intentional change, such as an installation that is re-arranged for each exhibition.
Several arguments have been advanced against the idea of defining art, for example, that the data used to inform definitions is systematically biased and corrupt, that the concepts used in the concept are part of a tradition of traditional metaphysics and epistemology gone wrong, and that therefore it is impossible to arrive at an agreed-on definition of art (see the entries on Wittgensteinianism and extreme Wittgensteinianism). Nonetheless, some argue that there are ways in which the definition can be modified or expanded, while others consider that all attempts to define art fall within the scope of the Euthyphro dilemma.