• I think “the best” art comes from pure creation; not for enjoying oneself, not for fun, not for pleasing others, not for money or other material benefits, but creating for the sake of creating itself. If you wanted to be poetic, you could even say the art gets created through you.
• And yes, I explicitly want to define art as something enjoyable. I find most art boring or repulsive, and my dada-sympathy-anti-art-statement is to rule them out of the sphere of art. ;) Also, without spectators, how would you know if the art is enjoyable?
• Art doesn’t need to be paid for, that’s true. This could be more a play on words than anything, but a price of zero is most likely in no proportion to the value of an art piece.

I have a problem with art being a tool for shaking emotion out of people, probably mostly because I generally do not like repulsive art. And that’s the kind of emotional response artists seem to be interested in.

I also don’t like the commercial vs. art mindset. I don’t have a problem with corporations paying “artists” for creating enjoyable experiences. So does that make me anti-art? (I want to be! ;)

The works are created for the sake of creating

So it is art, if the creation is fun, but the end result is not shown to anyone? Hmm…

The works are enjoyed by many

So it ain’t art if there are only a few spectators? Or if the spectators don’t enjoy it? (to me, some art is quite repulsive)

The price paid for the works is in no proportion to their material value

Why does art need to be paid for?

Anyway, here’s the best definition I’ve come up with:

“Art is something created for the sake of creating an emotional response for the spectator”

How do you like this one? If you like this definition, how could we simplify it to the short&witty core that could become a meme? :)