>>14358529nice, good answers
I have only two more ideas:
- I think universal acclaim is not necessary for a piece to trascend, let's see picrel and all the vanguard XX century stuff, they literally went against the critics and purists, broke every rule of how things should be drawn / painted and even got kicked out of galleries, but here they are, we still appreciate their soul in their works and are considered art without a doubt (some of them, of course)
- from what I understood about one of your arguments, art is away of the mundane normie life, but have you thought about 'art with a purpose'? here some people would argue that 'art with a purpose' is not art, but let me give you some examples and see if this makes any sense: fap fuel, literally a drawing / painting wanting to cause a high in libido and erections, coom drawings, this literally aligns with one of our two most raw impulses, eros, and it's well known and 'used' worldwide (aka doujin, hentai, erotism), and I'm not only talking about zoomers with porn addictions, but many erotism artists in the past like Renoir, Schiele, Balthus, etc; other ways to see 'art with a purpose' would be in the 99% of XVI and before of paintings, all made to portrait a specific bible extract for the churches, but I think the coom example is way more explanatory lol
but well, all I mentioned in this post I think are art, I'd go to another way of explaining art (I'd never say there's a strict definition), and I think that would be just: the purpose. If the artist makes a drawing with the purpose of studying something, then it's not art, if the artist makes a painting thinking about specifically making money with it (and not putting his soul in it by definition), then it's simply not art, but with pure intentions, and expression, I think it can perfectly be art
I'm again against your definition for one simple reason, what trascends can be easily manipulated, and that means anything could be art
