In response to Kim...

In Kim’s blog, she discusses Weitz’s mention that “mostly, when we describe something as a work of art, we do so under the conditions of there being present some sort of artifact, made by human skill, ingenuity, and imagination, which embodies in a sensuous, public medium –stone, wood, sounds, words, etc,- certain distinguishable elements and relations.” 

On one hand, I agree with the argument which Kim makes—this eliminates too many instances of art.  Like the oral storytelling that Kim mentions, dance, for instance, doesn’t present an ‘artifact’ per say, but a performance. With this in mind, the definition above would seemingly eliminate any sort of performance art; I think it is necessary to find a more satisfactory word than ‘artifact’ to include art that uses the body as a means of expression rather than an ‘artifact’ presented.

On the other hand, however, I am still dissatisfied with the addition to the definition which Kim adds.  First, not all instances of art are ‘eternal’ in my opinion. If something is made at some point in time then destroyed or lost from society, for example, does that mean that it was never art while it was in existence? I think not. Second, I have a problem with the addition of the creation of “something for more than practical use.” Take, for instance, dinnerware. People use it in everyday life for the practical use of aiding in the process of eating; yet whoever it was that created the dinnerware—the plates with all different kinds of colors and designs, the silverware with its etchings and varying designs—likely had intent or at least imagination behind the designs and colors they chose. I assume this is why for many people choosing the dinnerware that will be used for decades at family dinners is such an important aspect of settling down—they are works of art in everyday, practical use.

I accept these additions to the definition as valiant efforts to the flaws of the original definition, but still look to find a more satisfactory definition—or to decide if definition is even possible in the vast realm of art.