(Insert Broad and Vague Title about the Definition of Art)

I feel as though art is everything inside and outside of one's own mind. Much like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Art is that which is designed, or created. It has an artistic process in which it is manipulated and moved so that way it may move others. It involves skill (through either the aesthetic or the concept).  Art is intentional. Sometimes the artist manipulates the intent, or it is simply created within the mind of the viewer. Art is actually anything that is considered art. That which is not art is what has never been considered art. So that tree in the forest that falls, that no one hears, the noise that it makes is not art. It is what does not exist. Not to say that what does exist IS art.

            Artists are the creators of such intentions. They are the manipulators of their surroundings and the architects of perception. They skillfully catch the viewer through either aesthetic or concept. The title is not exactly necessary, but it is helpful. The title of artist embodies such a broad and complex idea, much like the title of love or beauty.

            Art should be made, because without art, life has no marrow; no substance. Life becomes a sort of hot water with no teabag. Art is one of the strongest forms of communication. In ancient times, on the walls of caves, mankind didn’t write out his/her thoughts. We drew what we saw. We attempted to recreate our perception in the most raw and unprecedented form of communication.
            Art must be assessed in a organized manner. A set of ground rules should be established if we ever want to criticize art effectively. first of all, comparisons might have to be made, this is why art history is so important. We must understand where we are coming from if we ever want to know where we are going. Next, we must look for the intent of the artist. Was the artist attempting to create solely for aesthetic pleasure? Or is there a concept involved? A message? When criticizing art, it is always good to know what the artist intends for us to see. The difference between good and bad is an extremely subjective judgment. Even with ground rules to criticize artwork, we are still placing our own judgments and experiences behind the piece of artwork. The distinction between high brow and low brow is art that has been done skillfully, and the artist has obvious talent, or art has been done unskillfully, despite having a sound concept. This distinction is unfair, and much like many other annoying distinctions placed upon society, it may change, but only with time and attention.