It is amusing how commonly this topic of ‘what constitutes art and what does not’ is debated.

Presumably derived from the Latin ‘Ars’,
1. Art, skill
2. Craft, power

According to Oxford Dictionary,
1. “Creative works produced by human beings”

The recurring thought is that art proceeds an act of creation.

The following terms elaborate categories of art:
‘Fine Art, Artwork, Black arts, Language arts, Liberal arts’.

The alternate meaning for art is perhaps that of a skill or specified hobby; one attained by means of practice such as with:
‘The art of forgiveness, the art of war, the art of memory’.

Webster’s 1913 Dictionary provides an older perspective, with art being defined as:
1. “Systematic application of knowledge or skill”
2. “Production of Imagination, taste, beauty, elegance”

We are all aware how artwork takes up many forms. Art is not monolithic nor is it set in stone as to what exactly classifies art.
‘Poetry, music, dance, sculpture, body modifications, genetic alterations, landscaping, architecture, food, film, games, experiential drugs, entertainment.’

Stimulus and effect is the common theme within these mediums.
Irregardless of whether it be taste, touch, smell, vision or hearing; so long as it can be experienced.
Inform me If I am resorting to logical fallacy, although It seems that artwork is inherently dependent on human faculties/cognition. Nevertheless, considering the vastness of our universe, non-human senses would allow for existence of new art completely alien to us, the extent of which, depends on the planetoid and its inhabitants. Presently we are aware of innumerable animal species possessing extrasensory capabilities, for example:

* Birds have the ability of ‘magnetoreception’. They are able to perceive the Earth’s magnetic field and thereby navigate correspondingly.
* Electroreception: The ability to detect electric currents, demonstrated by sharks and platypi.
* Echolocation in bats and cetaceans is basically a built-in sonar system.
* The ability to view infrared thermal radiation.

What would it be like to see colours invisible to the human retina? What would it feel like to perceive sonar and to ‘hear’ radiation? If senses were to be extended, these inspirations for art creation would be inexplicable.

I would also like to examine the distinction between man-made creations and natural creations.
Could one consider a waterfall or natural phenomena such as the Aurora Borealis as art? I have never witnessed such a comparison before, perhaps artwork is only attributed to manmade creations? If a beaver builds a dam or a colony of bees build a hive, can these creations be prescribed as works of art? Perhaps in a romantic sense we may marvel at animal creations, admiring their beauty and artistic value, but much like any opinion, art is subjective.

Where do the lines blur between art and non-art?
Taxonomization is useful to understand diversity of arts, but when humans denounce certain art expressions, does this not defeat the purpose of art as a concept of free, unregimented, unstructured personal expression? Should art have no bounds, no borders?

As for a form of communication, art serves a practical purpose whilst imagery and pictures do qualify as a homonym for language.
Aesthetic value can be transmitted through art, but if something is considered vile, some may not consider it to be art.



Art does not exclusively promote positive emotions such as wonder, amazement and joy. Art may also provoke emotions of bewilderment, mortification, terror, disgust, contempt and envy.
Examples: Explicitly pornographic art may arouse divisive emotions under public scrutiny - everything from lust to repugnance.

* Violently gruesome art may be controversial but there are certainly those whom cherish a certain artistic quality to these works.
* Art that is designed to amuse or repel the viewer such as a canvas painted using bodily fluids, a toilet seat lid on exhibit, or a rotting cadaver.



Seems a respectful boundary to follow.
Is there a correct or incorrect way to interpret art or is it based on a causal origin by the artist?
Assuming one can dictate the history or purpose of someones else’s arts seems a rather ostentatious endeavour. The original creator most likely possesses the greatest quantity of empirical knowledge concerning their creation, although the concept of originality is interesting because one could purport that all art is the product of what came before it, and art is eternally in a state of transformative flux, building off the back of predecessors, but this seems to apply to much more than just art.