Art is a diverse collection of objects, designs, and ideas that have been created over thousands of years. The arts form a powerful way of interpreting and understanding the world. They can illicit strong intellectual discourse and can change the behavior of society.
The definition of art is a complex topic, and there are many arguments that try to explain how it is possible to have such a complicated concept. One argument is that the different facets of art are so diverse that they can’t be unified into a single concept of “art.” Another is that if a definition were ever to be created, it would stifle creativity and inhibit artistic expression.
A third argument is that there is a nebulous category of things called art that cannot be defined, but whose existence we can be sure of because everyone agrees that it exists (Searle 1983). For example, if all the people in Paris have agreed that something is a cocktail party, that doesn’t mean that everyone thinks that it is a cocktail party; they might all be wrong.
This nebulous category of things might include an infinite number of objects and ideas that are both art and non-art, and that don’t even fit into one of the above categories. If this were the case, we would have to define art using some sort of enumerative method, but that would make the definition uninformative and ungrounded.
There are also arguments that a definition of art can’t be based on a set of definite characteristics, and that it must rely on an abstract theory of how the world works. In this case, the concepts that make up a definition are embedded in general philosophical theories that incorporate traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and that the language used to describe art goes on a conceptually confused holiday (Tilghman 1984).
The most common and important argument against a definition of art is that the variety of facets that comprise it prevents the creation of a comprehensive definition. The argument is similar to the one that Wittgenstein makes in his famous remarks about games: if there is an arbitrary heap of objects, then there can’t be a unified class of them; there can’t be a unified concept of game, and there can’t be a unified definition of a game. This is because the class of objects might be a mere chaotic heap, and not a genuine patchwork of different facets that interlock in an ordered way.