Weitz

Weitz defines art as an open concept that cannot be defined, but certain aspects of it seem to almost always be the same in his mind. He writes, “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”(192). This does not address the emotions, expression of wants, etc. that many of the other artists have included, but it also does not exclude them as aspects of many works of art. It seems that this quote could serve as a definition, but it is likely Weitz had at least a few exceptions in mind because of the use of the word mostly. If this were to be used as a definition, as Weitz would not want it to, it would eliminate animals creating art and any art where there is not an artifact present so oral storytelling would not be an art. This definition would not exclude much art. A definition based on this one that includes a little more would be art involves the creation of something either enduring or brief that involves the use of skill, ingenuity and imagination to create something for more than practical use. This definition is vague and probably includes too much.

                What are the flaws of this definition?