invisible circle

The meaning of the word “art” has changed too drastically over the centuries for us to suggest a modern, all-inclusive definition. The ancients had a sense of “skill” in mind; but since that time societies and individuals have used it differently. To me the crucial debate seems to be whether art needs to be a physical product, or something like the “skill” implied in the original use of the word. I think we are so used to "appreciating" art or "experiencing" it, that we tend to confuse results with the method responsible for producing them, which is understandable considering the possession-crazy society we live in.

I agree with Thoreau that almost any endeavor, whether it be craftsmanship in the literal sense, or the education of a student, or something like a life spent following a considered philosophy, can be undertaken in an artful manner, even though the results are not necessarily called art by others. The deliberate refinement of a process, and the attempt to become more adept at it, for some motivation other than a mere desire for tangible results (or a metaphorical goal, like the horse-hound-turtle-dove idea) is key—when viewed from the outside, the attitude would probably be called taking pride in what one does. Maybe insanity. And if something like a book, a painting, a song, a sculpture, or a film, results from that endeavor, and can be appreciated by other people, well, all the better. Then we can call that thing “art”, give our email addresses to Amazon, and place our orders in advance when the next result of the process is about to become available.