What is art? That is the main question of Aesthetics, the philosophy of art. Under this semantically simple inquiry are many others that are just as complex such as:
Is art necessary?
Why do we make art?
Why are we drawn to art?
What makes one artwork better than another? Is there such thing?
What does art mean?
What does art say about the human condition, about existence?
What is beauty?
Does art have meaning?
Should art be put into context?
It is not supposed to be my first time dabbling in this field, but I believe it is only now that I am taking it seriously. Perhaps because I am taking it as a formal class in my final year of undergraduate studies and also that I want to become both a better philosopher and artist. The latter adds a lot to the stakes here. I want to make art—more art, better art, eternal art—but why? Some days I have answers; some days I do not and so I do not do anything directly art-related either; some days I still do not but somehow I get to make something and I know that thing—painting, image, poetry, coffee, whatever—is art, however art should mean.
Should art be defined by the artist, the audience (or an aesthete), both, or neither in particular? Should artists thrive to continually improve themselves and their craft in order to create works on a progression toward excellence or some standard of perfection? Should artists aim to create perfect artworks—why do some do? Is there even such thing?
Should artists instead embrace their artistry—style, skill, and oddity—as it is to create unique artworks regardless of standard or sociocultural context?
If art is a reflection of culture, then how does it connect with language as another concept that is often interlinked with culture?
These are some questions I think about as I study concepts such as sense of beauty and taste, modernism and postmodernism in art, natural realism and abstractions, images and the “Age of the Image”, aesthetic judgments and historicity, etc.