Definitions of Art: What is Art?

Author: Brock Rough
Category: Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Word Count: 997

In 1964, Andy Warhol made fake Brillo soap boxes that appeared identical to those found in a supermarket and displayed them in a New York art gallery.^[1] Warhol’s boxes were then considered works of art, while the supermarket boxes were not.^[2]

Michelangelo’s David, da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, and Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony are widely regarded as obvious examples of art. But a stapler, a traffic cone, or a microwave oven are usually not considered art.

What distinguishes art from non-art? This is a central question in the field of study called aesthetics, which focuses on philosophical issues about art.^[3]

This essay introduces influential philosophical attempts to define art.

1. The Varieties of Art

Art exists in many forms. Painting, sculpture, architecture, music, dance, theater, literature, poetry, film, and performance art are commonly recognized as types of art. Some argue that cooking, fashion, and video games are also art, or can be. If we can correctly define “art,” then we should be able to tell what is and isn’t art.

Many definitions of art fall into two broad categories: proceduralist and functionalist.^[4] Each tries to capture the defining characteristics of artworks.

2. Proceduralist Theories

Proceduralist theories say that something is art if people treat or recognize it as art in specific situations, such as art galleries and museums. One influential proceduralist theory is the institutional theory of art.^[5] This says something is art if the “artworld”—artists, critics, curators—recognizes it as worthy of aesthetic appreciation.^[6]

The institutional theory can explain why Warhol’s Brillo soap boxes were considered art. In the supermarket, they were packaging. In the gallery, they were recognized by the artworld.

Critics argue that this definition is circular: art is defined by the artworld which is defined by art. And why does the artworld accept some works as art? Presumably because they possess qualities that make them art prior to the artworld’s judgment.^[7]

Another proceduralist approach is the historical definition of art.^[8] This says something is art if it is intended to be regarded in the same manner as past artworks. For instance, Jackson Pollock’s drip paintings, though unusual, were still intended to be viewed as paintings, and thus this theory says we should consider them art. However, it raises the question of what made earlier (and especially the earliest) artworks art if historical precedent is the measure.^[9]

3. Functionalist Theories

Functionalist theories define art by what it does rather than how it is recognized. In particular, functionalist theories say that something is art if it provides or produces aesthetic value or aesthetic experience.^[10] An aesthetic experience is an enjoyable perceptual encounter of appreciating something for its form, beauty, or expression, rather than practical use. Feeling wowed by a musical performance, captivated by a movie, or getting lost in a book are examples of aesthetic experience.

Functionalist approaches face challenges though. Natural objects, like rainbows and waterfalls; people, like models and celebrities; animals, such as bald eagles and horses, all can produce aesthetic experiences. Yet they are not typically considered artworks.^[11] This suggests that intentions matter: if someone carefully arranges stones on a beach, that might count as art, whereas a naturally formed rock formation would not.

Functionalist theories must also decide whether art is defined by the artist’s intention, the audience’s experience, or both.^[12] An artist could create a work without anticipating its aesthetic effect, or people could have aesthetic experiences in response to a created object, as though it were art, despite no one intending it as art. So, is something art because someone created it to be art, or because it causes people to have aesthetic experiences, or a combination of the two? Functionalist theories must answer this question.

4. Can Art Be Defined at All?

Some philosophers doubt that a strict definition of art is possible.^[13] For instance, Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that certain concepts lack a single defining feature. They are instead defined by overlapping similarities, or family resemblances.^[14] Games illustrate this idea: chess, soccer, and video games differ significantly, but are grouped together as the same type of thing—games. The definition of art might work the same way.

Building on family resemblance, cluster accounts have been proposed.^[15] These say an object is likely art if it possesses enough features from a cluster of traits, such as aesthetic value, emotional expression, technical skill, or originality. Not all features are necessary; possessing enough suffices. For instance, something could count as a work of art if it just shows aesthetic value and technical skill, without any of the other qualities. Cluster accounts allow flexibility, offering the ability to encompass a wide array of types of art.

Critics maintain that cluster accounts are not genuine definitions.^[16] They provide guidelines for identifying art but do not strictly determine what counts as art. Nevertheless, they enable us to understand how things as different as dance, painting, and music can all qualify as kinds of art.

5. Why Defining Art Matters

Definitions of art have significant consequences. They influence what is displayed in museums. If photography or graffiti aren’t considered art, these works may be neglected. Definitions also affect education. An art history curriculum shaped by a narrow definition could omit entire traditions or artforms. Funding decisions depend on definitions too, as cultural institutions must decide which creative practices deserve support.

Definitions also influence interpretation. Experimental performances or digital installations may be accepted as art or dismissed as non-art depending on the criteria used. Proceduralist, functionalist, or cluster-based approaches all shape how society engages with creative works. Understanding these frameworks clarifies the stakes of artistic judgment.

Defining art matters on a personal level too: a too-narrow view of what art can be might prevent people from having and appreciating new aesthetic experiences.

6. Conclusion

The search for a definition of art shows how rich and varied art is. Many forms of art exist today that no one even dreamed of 100 years ago. Even without a universal definition, exploring these theories deepens our understanding of art and its significance.

Notes

^[1] In contemporary terms, this would be like if an artist today made a fake Amazon delivery box that looks exactly like the real thing.

^[2] Danto (1974) discusses the example of Warhol’s Brillo Boxes at length.

^[3] Aesthetics also explores what distinguishes aesthetic experiences; whether beauty is in the eye of the beholder; why we enjoy artistic works depicting tragedy and horror; the meaning and value art contributes to our lives; and many more related questions. For an introduction to aesthetics, see Aesthetics vs. Art by Brock Rough and “Aesthetics” by Barry Hartley Slater at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For an introduction to the aesthetics of videogames, see Videogames and Philosophy by Alex Fisher. For an introduction to the topic of the sublime in aesthetics, see Kant’s Theory of the Sublime by Matthew Sanderson. For an introduction to the topic of “subjectivism” in art, regarding whether beauty is “in the eye of the beholder,” see “That’s Subjective”: Subjectivism about Truth, Beauty, and Goodness by Nathan Nobis.

^[4] For an introduction to each of these types of theories of art, see Davies (1990).

In the interest of space, this essay focuses on contemporary philosophical definitions of art (e.g., proceduralist and functionalist definitions). Classical definitions include the ideas that something is art if it imitates or represents objects in the world (mimesis), represents and arouses emotions in the experiencer (expressivism), or possesses a notable or significant form (formalism). For an example of the mimesis theory, see Aristotle (2013/c. 400 BC). Collingwood (1938) provides an influential example of expressivism. Bell (1914) offers what is considered the most important theory of formalism.

^[5] Dickie (1984) and Matravers (2000) provide influential institutional theories of art.

^[6] Danto (1974) coined the term and defined the concept of “the artworld.”

^[7] See Levinson (2011) for an example of this criticism.

^[8] Carroll (1993) and Levinson (2011) provide two influential historical theories of art.

^[9] See Davies (1997) for an example of this criticism.

^[10] Beardsley (1982) and Zangwill (2007) offer two influential functionalist theories of art.

^[11] Shusterman (2000) argues that functionalist theories are insufficient to define art because non-art (e.g., natural objects) can also cause aesthetic experiences.

^[12] Beardsley (1982) points out that functionalist theories must decide whether art is defined by the artist’s intention, the audience’s response, or a combination of both.

^[13] For instance, Weitz (1956) argues that art cannot be defined.

^[14] See Wittgenstein (2009/1953) for his theory of family resemblances.

^[15] Davies (2004) offers an influential cluster account of art.

^[16] Carroll (1999) argues that cluster accounts of art basically just point at examples of art rather than offering a genuine definition. Said differently, cluster accounts can give examples of art, but they can’t explain why they should be considered examples, since to do that arguably requires giving a genuine definition of art.

References

Aristotle. (2013/c. 4000 BC). Aristotle’s “Politics.” University of Chicago Press.  

Beardsley, Monroe. (1982). The Aesthetic Point of View: Selected Essays, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Bell, Clive. (1914). Art. Oxford University Press.

Carroll, Noel. (1993.) “Historical Narratives and the Philosophy of Art”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 51(3): 313–26.

Carroll, Noel. (1999). Philosophy of Art: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.

Collingwood, Robin G. (1938). The Principles of Art. Oxford University Press.

Danto, Arthur, C. (1974). “The Transfiguration of the Commonplace.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 33 (2), 139-148.

Davies, Stephen. (1990). “Functional and Procedural Definitions of Art.” Journal of Aesthetic Education, 99-106.

Davies, Stephen. (1997). “First Art and Art’s Definition.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 35 (1): 19–34.

Davies, Stephen. (2004). “The Cluster Theory of Art.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 44 (3), 297-300.

Dickie, George. (1984). The Art Circle: A Theory of Art. New York: Haven.

Matravers, Derek. (2000). “The Institutional Theory: A Protean Creature.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 40 (2), 242-250.

Levinson, Jerrold. (2011). “Defining Art Historically,” in Music, Art, & Metaphysics, (pp. 3-25). Oxford University Press. (1975).

Shusterman, Richard. (2000). Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking Art. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Slater, Barry Hartley. (No date provided). “Aesthetics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Zangwill, Nick. (2007). Aesthetic Creation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weitz, Morris. (1956). “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15 (1), 27-35.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (2009/1953). Philosophical Investigations. Wiley-Blackwell.

Further Reading

Adajian, Thomas. (2024). “The Definition of Art.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Art.

Bonard, Constant and Humbert-Droz, Steve. (No date provided.) “The Definition of Art.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Related Essays

Aesthetics vs. Art by Brock Rough

Videogames and Philosophy by Alex Fisher

Kant’s Theory of the Sublime by Matthew Sanderson

“That’s Subjective”: Subjectivism about Truth, Beauty, and Goodness by Nathan Nobis

Revision History

This essay was revised by the Editors of 1000-Word Philosophy and reposted on 8/30/2025; the original version was posted on 5/5/2014 and is available here.

About the Author

Brock Rough earned a PhD in philosophy at the University of Maryland, College Park. His research focuses on the art status and ontology of videogames, their role as a test case for theories of art, and the ontology and intersection of games and art. Before pursuing philosophy, Brock spent several years working as a portrait painter. BrockRough.com

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook, Bluesky, Instagram, Twitter / X, Threads, and LinkedIn, and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com.