The Problem with Definition

Defining something as art exists as a two part problem.  The issue is the connection from the artist’s intent to the acceptance by the art community.  Anything that is created with the intent of being art has the potential to be art.  Only when it is agreed by observers of the piece that it is art is it then considered as art.  The only true objective component what makes something art is the intent in creation.  Art is not accident.  All other determining factors are subjective.  People have different views on what makes something a work of art.  These views come from each persons’ experience and learning of a definition of art.  When people from multiple points of reference can agree that a certain piece is a work of art then it is probability an acceptable example of art.   This alludes to a collective subjective understanding or agreement.  Everything is defined by what it is commonly understood to be.

No belief or understanding of concepts can completely be wrong unless it goes against definable properties that the concept entails.  Personal understandings of a single piece of art are all correct.  However, as the determination applies to a larger world outside of one’s self it must coincide with the overall understanding of the majority of that world.  For the artist something may be art, but if everyone else disagrees with that finding, then as it applies to them it is not art.  That doesn’t mean that the artist’s determination is wrong.  It simply means that it was added to a personal classification or medium of art.

As more people agree with this classification or reasons why it is art, that particular grouping may grow.  This in turn can create a new medium for art to exist.  This is the precise thing that allows for the expansion of the art world.  The more people that accept this new medium, the greater the probability the piece being defended will be accepted as part of the art world.

Does the implication of limiting what is included in the art world by a collective agreement of whether it should be accepted help to add limitation to the intentionalist theory of art?  Is it a just limitation?