This is not an attempt to redefine art, as many art critics have tried to do. Rather, it is an in-depth analysis of art as a concept, explaining the term in its broadest sense, with only a few exceptions: First, the meaning as a synonym for acquired skill or special talent is not included. Psychoanalysis, for example, is an art, but it is not art. Second, claims that anything is art and everything is art are thoroughly discredited. Art is something specific. The aim here is to explain exactly what that something is.

The precept of definition demands that we should try not to take offense with anyone's application of the term, but rather try to explain how the term came to be applied. Art critics (both cultured and uncultured) may find this mode of defining unsatisfactory, having been offended on occasion by people claiming something is art when it clearly lacks some quality (such as good taste) they deem essential for proper application of the term, art. But here, matters of opinion have been weeded out. What remains is a rigorous methodology capable of explaining why certain applications of the term are logical while others are not.

A somewhat vague term---artistic purpose---is used here to depict the mysterious motivations that lie behind human expressions of the aesthetic variety. It is enough to say that in creating art the person has a purpose beyond the simple desire to create something practical and utilitarian. We cannot specify exactly what that purpose (or purposes) is. Even though art springs from a broad range of human motivations, we need only acknowledge that people do things that are meant to beautify or to creatively express ideas. Artistic purpose is a genuine phenomenon. Evidence of it exists. This evidence is what we call art, and it can occur in degrees so minute as to go unnoticed.

Granted, the distinction between artistic purpose and utilitarian purpose is very subtle, a subject of debate in some cases. Advertisements, for example, are often a creative blend of artistic form and utilitarian function. But this blending of purposes need not confuse us. We know there are advertisements that are not artistic, and art which does not advertise. In defining art it is sufficient that we are able to recognize these two different purposes for things and realize that in some cases one or the other is not present or does not apply.

Another subtle distinction employed here is between evoking and reflecting. If something evokes an idea, it is capable of summoning that idea into conscious awareness by its own force or nature. If something merely reflects an idea, it is compatible with the idea but lacks the ability to summon that idea into conscious awareness all by itself.