Let's play a game: Can you guess which of this images are made by famous artists and which were made by kids?

Take this quiz, it'll only take you a minute!

Then come back, keep reading, and share your results in the comments!

Did you guess them all correctly? I bet you didn't.

Well, that's how difficult it is to come up with a concept for art that gathers:
the concept's evolution through history,
all the different styles,
and the styles yet to come.

We may need to add function as one of our considerations, even though it has a lot to do with the concept's history. Our perspective on this subject is key to the construction of a definition of art.

Let's review a few popular sentences that try to define "art" contemporary:

1. "Art is what someone calls art" or "Art is what an artist says it is"
2. "Everything is art"

Here are a few opinions that may come along with those affirmations:

• "What is that supposed to mean? I don't get it."
• "Contemporary art sucks."
• "I could have done that myself."

Without trying to convince you from changing your opinion, if it's somehow represented in this post, I'm going to tell you a few reasons why those aren't good definitions:

• Saying contemporary art sucks because it's elitist (meaning that only a few can understand it) is ignoring the role art has had through history: It has always been associated with prestige, because it's related to spiritual growth. Wisdom, creativity, and beauty, are qualities we admire.

This doesn't mean that only a few can enjoy it, but perhaps it means that people who are more involved with culture, will enjoy it more. Ugh, I know, it may sound bad, but it isn't. It's a long subject, maybe for another post.

• A concept that relies on an opinion it's not stable. Also, a concept must apply to all cases.

First of all, should we consider some opinions, like for example, an art critic's opinion? Or is any opinion valid? How would this influence the art market?

If art is just what someone says it is, it would mean that an artist which work wasn't recognized during his lifetime, didn't make art. But we know that some works of art often gained their popularity long after their creator passed away.

• YES, MAYBE YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT. But you didn't. Contemporary art sometimes seems simple, but judging a work of art takes more than just comparing techinques, whether they are (or seem) easy.

The concept is fundamental.¨Dominating a technique is impressive, but doesn't turn it into art. So what does it?

See? I told you it's not easy!

Who decides what's art and what isn't?
What makes an object "art" is different from what makes an object attractive or appealing?
Maybe it isn't necessary to separate this qualities.
But is art a quality?
...
What the F is art?

If we agree that those definitions are wrong, or at least we're doubting them, then let's go back to our considerations:
the concept's evolution through history,
all different styles,
the styles yet to come,
art's function.

I'll try to give you a concept of art that satisfies these considerations. But we'll need to explain some things in the way!

I'll post the next part each week.

Here are the subjects:
Chapter 2: A brief brief brief history of the concept of art.
Chapter 3: Art b.D. and a.D. (before Duchamp and after Duchamp)
Chapter 4: Is art dead? Contemporary art.
Chapter 5: Conclusions. (I'm pretty sure it's going to remain as an open question... And maybe that's the point!)