A position like mine -- shared, I realize, by many others including William
-- is that there is no mind-independent ontic status "art" such that a
given object or act either "IS" art or it's not, regardless of what any of us
think/feel. Still, any one of us is allowed to try to frame a description of
when we personally are willing to bestow the honorific label 'ART'. The
description is very likely to be fuzzy, but, minimally, serviceable. E.g., "I
call 'art' any object or event that gives me personally an aesthetic
experience."
What constitutes an 'aesthetic experience' is subject to much discussion
(which I'd be pleased to see the forum embark on). And the description as
given is too short, leaving many questions. ("What? You'd call non-man-things
like a sunset or a piece of driftwood 'art'??!!) Note that this is a
stipulation about word use, not about ontic status. I'm not saying "If a work
occasions in me an a.e. it IS art." I'm saying only, "If a work occasions in me
an
a.e. I CALL it art." The stipulation has the narrow use of helping a reader
realize what's on my mind when I say 'art'.
I still ultimately cling to the feeling that the most intriguing question
is WHY do some things occasion a.e.'s in me. The second most is, Given the
disparity among genres -- music, arthitecture, dance, poetry, drama etc -- are
the feelings I get from each such that I can defend calling them all
'aesthetic experiences'?
