Art is many things: a form of entertainment; an object of aesthetic beauty; a medium for expressing ideas and emotions; an act of social activism; a way to celebrate cultures and traditions; a vehicle for addressing global issues like climate change. Its impact is profound and often overlooked, as it illuminates culture, facilitates understanding among societies with different values and inspires participation in social movements for change.
The scholarly consensus around what constitutes art is that it includes the visual arts (painting, sculpture and architecture), as well as the performing arts (music, dance and theatre) and the literary arts (writing). Throughout history and across cultures, definitions of art have evolved at crucial points in time to reflect and respond to changing societal challenges.
As a result, it is often difficult to discuss or define art, as it may be interpreted in a variety of ways by different people. One of the most common challenges is that attempts to define art often include elements that cannot be clearly demonstrated, and therefore are not necessarily art. Another is that some definitions have a tendency to be overly cladistic, in that they impose a requirement for art to be produced by humans, and as such, exclude nonhuman artistic production, even when it is evocative of human emotions and ideas.
Moreover, some definitions of art have been found to be biased and corrupt. For example, a number of studies have indicated that women are systematically exposed to more androcentric art historical canons and practices. As a consequence, some scholars have suggested that definitions of art must be gender-neutral or gynocentric.
This article presents an alternative approach to defining art by drawing upon the ideas of philosopher and art historian Judith Butler. Her argument is that any concept can be used in different cases, allowing us to extend it or close it, and that this process of definition-making makes our understanding of art indefinable.