Throughout history, there have been two main positions on the qualifications of art. The realists, for one, held that art is judged objectively. Certainly, the word art conjures up a Romantic painting or something by Picasso. We can all concur that those would be considered art. And, a Picasso painting would still be considered art even if nobody on earth existed and could give opinions on it. It seems then that there are universal standards for art. The realist’s stance rests on this intuitive fact. But in today’s world, is this still a plausible approach? Although there is little controversy as to whether or not Picasso constitutes art, there is still controversy as to whether or not a pickled shark constitutes art. Or, how about Jeff Koons, an “artist” who pays others to create his works? Can he actually be considered an artist, and are his works considered art? We are no longer in the age when people can easily agree on art, and this take on art would pose many problems.

The other position would be subjectivism, the idea that art is necessarily tied to human emotions. If I do not judge Picasso’s paintings to be art, then, to me, it is not art. To take an old cliché, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But this view of art also poses many problem, the biggest is that by making art subjective, the definition of art becomes so watered-down that anything can be considered art. Although we want art to be broad, we certainly don’t want it encompass everything.

A rather interesting approach, which I shall the call the “museum theory,” held by one of my friends proposes that whatever is in an art institution is art. According to this position, the pickled shark, the works of Rachel Whiteread, and anything else that has ever been inside a museum of art is held as art. While interesting, this theory also has many flaws. First, what about those numerous freelance artists who have never had the honor of exhibiting their works at museums? Many people would still acknowledge their works as art, even though they have never entered a prominent gallery. Second, the “museum theory” is highly uninformative in that it doesn’t tell us why paintings or sculptures enter art museums in the first place. Museum administrators certainly had reasons for including them, and it would be more helpful if we knew those reasons.

After examining many different approaches, we have yet to reach a satisfactory definition. But, perhaps, the problem lies with our desire to reach a definition to begin with. It seems that to know something, we need to provide a clear cut and all encompassing definition of that something. That, however, doesn’t always need to be the case, especially with art where there doesn’t seem to be an associated all-encompassing quality. The realists are right that we can usually agree what is and what isn’t art. Pieces of art usually share many common features and purposes; they can express, reveal, and send people to entirely different worlds. The problem comes when we try to find a common denominator. If there isn’t a quality that all art shares, then it would be faulty to create definition of art. Our understanding of the word art, then, is how we use it. The problem with art wasn’t that we can’t find a definition for it. Rather, it was that we even began looking for one to begin with.