Greta wrote: ↑April 10th, 2020, 6:35 pm
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑April 10th, 2020, 12:29 pm
The approach to many practical problems depends on imagination. Your definition would make any invention a work of art.
Internally, anything can be perceived as a work of art, whether intended or not. By contrast, externally, defining something as "art" is a matter of marketing.
I'm not sure what is meant by internally and externally. Art, it seems, has always referred to something that shows up in society, a social praxis. If we individually perceive it as art, it is because we have learned it.
I think it's important to understand exactly what is our "terminological pointer" directed to when we're trying to ask the question. If we have in mind the art gallery right down the corner or the latest artist showcased in Artsy, we have already narrowed the definition to modern conceptions of art, but even from our current point of view, I think we can try to answer the question of what is art in general, so that it applies to prehistoric cave paintings, as well as Rothko.