I’m wrestling with the nebulous definition of art. Its odd ineffability has me in a quarter-nelson, but I’m considering grabbing tight and rolling the thing over with an equation.
I wouldn’t be so pretentious as to claim to generate a universal definition for art, but perhaps with the right parameterization, we can make a formula set that is locally-solvable for a given person’s cultural and intellectual perceptions. I suppose we could measure the success of the formula set by characterizing sundry perceptions and art-definitions in the public and seeing if, for representative variable-values, commonly recognizable definitions emerge.
Hmmm….
Have you read Paul Graham’s essay “How Art Can Be Good”? I think it’s fundamentally flawed and incomplete in its suggested criteria, but it sharpened my thinking on the topic.
http://www.paulgraham.com/goodart.html
I haven’t read it yet, but consider it added to my list. I agree that dull stones can be used to sharpen one’s blade. Of the mind.
… bleh, that metaphor got out of hand and superbly cheesy really fast.