What is Art?

So art is defined by its ability to communicate effectively? Or how?

IMO art has to at least try to communicate [i]something[/i] in order to qualify as such.

What if it's just beautiful? No pretensec of meaning. Or what if it's not beautiful & it's not beautiful... but it elicits a response from the onlooker?

Communicating an aesthetic is still a form of communication, though. An elegant piece otherwise completely devoid of meaning I would consider more as artisanry, which has a value of its own and quite different standards. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact a lot of the music I listen to has no real artistic value and I just listen to it for the aesthetics.

Art doesn't have to be beautiful; in fact some of the best art I've seen is very disturbing. It's always trying to say something, though.

I'll take that, but the idea of communicating aesthetics is confusing to me. Maybe eliciting a response? Or communicating ideas & sensations, not aesthetics itself? Or do I misunderstand?

Sorry, I was using "aesthetic" when I should have said design language. The design language can be the message itself, or it can be a means to something else.

I love your perspective! 😁 thanks for contributing here