Even so, I remain hopeful that we might construct a satisfactory -- however inclusive and broad -- intensional definition of art.
Professor Johnson wrote that quote on his blog. Although I believe that discussing art in hopes to create a definition is important, I’m unsure of our ability to actually create a definition. Will we be able to integrate all of the author’s opinions in the text? Will we be able to agree on our own opinions?
These questions are why I believe that maybe art should stay undefined and uncategorized. Progress has been made in striving towards a definition through discussion, and it has opened up some great conversation, thought, and debate. So can that be enough to satisfy our need to question the question of art?
Maybe with art remaining open and uncategorized, it leaves room for growth and development. Art is allowed to evolve since it has no boundaries, allowing for the development of future pieces like another urinal!
My question is those above: Should we continue to strive towards definition? Is definition possible?