What is art?


Art is something that requires a high degree of skill to produce

Art is something that requires personal, individual expression

I think that art can be functional, and something functional can be art. I think that the intentionality that is put into a piece is key in separating art from simply an object.
Art does not have to be liked by a viewer, but good art should allow someone to appreciate it regardless of whether they like it or not. This is tricky because if you don't like it, how do you appreciate it? This is why I think art requires a high degree of skill.

Art can be either conceptually or technically based. Either way it is the skill set of the artist and how they choose to use it that defines a piece. The artist in many ways allows a piece to be art, but there is still a component of audience that defines whether or not a piece is truly art.

While someone defining themself as an artist vs a craftsman etc is important, I think that personally saying "I'm an artist" is not a legitimate definition

I think that an artist is someone who makes good art - someone who has the skills to make a work that can be liked by some for an emotional reason, and appreciated by many for it's technical aspects

I think that this is in some ways an exclusive title - It comes with a standard. I am not sure whether or not titles are necessariy. While I think that maybe an academic standard or opinion of who is and who is not an artist is somewhat ridiculous, I feel that just because someone makes a painting does not make him/her an artist either.

Art is indispensably unnecessary - It is a dichotomy in human nature to need art, while art is totally irrelevant to life.
Art is necessary. It is an expression of experience, opinion, emotion on a level that reaches deeper than words. Art is also personal. So art is necessary to express these things as an artist, and to create something beautiful.

Art is also superfluous. Art is not necessary to function or to survival. That is why it is art, it goes beyond what is actually necessary in a way that is necessary.

I assess art first on how I feel about it - My instinct as to whether it is good or bad. This is not necessarily the best way to assess a piece, but it is practical: "Do I like it?"
Second, I look to it's formal qualities - Is it well made? Is it thought out?
Third, does it have a message? is that message to be beautiful?
I I think that the best art should be pleasing to look at formally, and that it should not be reserved for a highbrow audience. I think that highbrow vs lowbrow does exist - hence the elitist academic world of art. However I think that such categories are a messed up system that chokes art and creativity with ideas of concept and meaning above beauty/the unnecessary ornamentation of life

I think that a truly successful piece of art is one that holds a concept or meaning while retaining a sense of  the unnecessary. A balance between the necessary expression of feeling and the unnecessary ornamentation.