what is art

art is expression and i know this is a basic ahh definition but it genuinely is the closest i think we'll get to one. defining one's own expression as art creates a dillema where you can't impose on others your understanding of art, and if their expression in itself is art. i know i'm abstracting a lot from the idea but the matter of the fact is that we cannot define art under any form of linguistic categorization as it undermines the agency of choice from the artist or the viewer. when one creates it is a form of expression, be it as dull as reshaping a dirt mound, or making business papers. another thing that's relevant to the conversation comes in when we talk about the relation of creation to capital and how we value things as a society and as individuals. it's easy to say water needs to be a human right but its overexpenditure only exists because we are so granted it will always be there. art is a luxury, and in itself, not a survival need, but probably something i'd argue is a by product of being alive; not only alive, but conscious. of course conscious experience cannot be defined the same through any given collective as it is shaped by ones own experiences and how one came to learn to process it along with its internal biological mechanisms(think how autism has many see social norms with a completely different scope even after growing up alongside non-spectrum individuals). luxury is a term we often relate to capital but that counterintuitively i believe that art shouldnt relate to(capital). in a sense the valuation of creation for the mere purpose of expressing ideation, opinion, or some deep subconscious will to create is something that cannot be expressed concretely in any form of capital as we know it nowadays. capital as we know it in my understanding is what defines the collective valuation of a given material or service, and in such, abhorrently useless to value art. as a luxury, and of limited supply and demand, its often easy to argue if one found an old sketch that picasso painted, or they did an artpiece that motivated the overthrowing of a government to put valuation on it, so its not on the hands of people that could destroy it. but at the end of the day the exchange of art through means such as capital to protect it feels like one of the only reasons we preserve history that went by and made what we are today -> it(the artwork) being in an utilitarian perspective, useless to the present(besides the capability of (due to the hard labour of maintenance and protection of such artifact) to remind us of something when we pass by it on a museum). this is not to say museums are useless, quite the opposite. i'd say it makes utilization of historical artifacts in a way that not only brings its relevance during its time to the present but that it has the capability to remind us what we are capable of in a creative perspective. this goes a bit into conceptual art as of the contemporary definition of throwing a bucket of paint at the wall and saying the interpretation is up to the viewer. I find this to be quite the bullshit, and for good reason. think the banana on the wall for example. I think it ties back into capital into a funny way as a form of satirization of how the collective came to devalue art. it isn't a matter of the product, the artist, or the viewer anymore, i feel like. its funny in a way imo how such things often are art but a satire to how we came to see art through the lens of capital nowadays. some old guy that is known for being a contemporary art director will come up with the most random bullshit (think banana taped to the wall) and be praised millions for it. AI in a way comes in quite handy for this case because it can just create so much bullshit that I'd say it can give clarity to a lot of people that proper decision making is what creates a lot of the best artworks, be it technique-related decisions, think realism, AND (not or) conscious and subconscious decisions that will affect the outcome in a way that comes out of an expression of who you are; and yes, it is to say that even hyperreallists have something to argue for in their favour, as their form of expression is often praised for technique but i'd say there is something to point that makes it theirs! be it reference, or brushstroke patterns, or such. i lost the plot. anwaysy, go create something. if not fuck you. jk :3