Answer to Nicole's Question

Art has long been established as actually being something physical, but as the 20th century has occurred, I think that idea has changed. Morris Weitz also wrote his essay on art less than a hundred years ago, which puts it into contemporary perspective for us. One could call the idea of thinking of concepts or philosophizing an art, and not simple in the mocking sense like: "There is an art to thinking, Joe-Bob." Taking this idea of something conceptual being art, one could even think of emotions being an art, even though they cannot be displayed or viewed aesthetically, which, I am sure, would be the criteria for some other philosopher's definition of art. I think it is for these reasons that I raised the somewhat foolish question in class of whether or not literature is an artifact. My thought process was something like this: I thought of the idea and the story not the physical book itself. And before the printing press and other ways of dedicating word to paper, stories were told aloud and in a nonphysical form. Do we exclude those stories as art? Are they only didactic instructions told in a story form?

As for physical items, anything could be art. A rocket going to the moon could be art, because it is created with innovative, creative intention. Purpose really does not matter in creating. I think human beings, most of all usually considered non-art objects, could be considered art. They are created by human beings but, as philosophers duly note, for no intended purpose. That is one of the biggest questions: What is our purpose? Do we have a purpose? But I am of the strong opinion that anything can be art. This notion does not mean that the art will be good, but I prefer to look at everything that is created like an art.