If you want to start an interesting conversation, ask your friends, "what is art?" then sit back and enjoy the discussion. It's a word that is taken for granted, but most people have never asked themselves how to define art and what precisely differentiates something as art? This debate has been ongoing for millennia and every culture has a different view. 

The Western word for "art" comes from Latin "ars" and its Greek root "technē" meaning "skill" or "craft". This is also the same meaning of the Arabic word for art "fan", Sanskrit "kālā" and Chinese "yi". And indeed for most of history art was produced by artisans (skilled laborers) who learned traditional patterns to express beauty and meaning important to their own culture.  

But each culture had very different sensibilities and goals. Chinese philosophers saw art as an expression of harmony with the cosmic order, a practice cultivated as a moral or spiritual skill to assist the Dao (way of living). Indian culture shared this cosmic perspective, emphasizing the spiritual experience of realization and awakening to universal truths. Japanese tradition promoted "wabi-sabi" (beauty in imperfection and transience), "ma" (space or intervals in composition) and "shibui" (subtle elegance). Islamic culture emphasized the infinite within the finite, using geometry to invoke spiritual contemplation. And African culture practiced art as a functional instrument of ritual and communal storytelling. 

Art was a way of participating in something greater than oneself, the unique voice of the artist and the personal interpretation of the viewer were irrelevant. It wasn't until the humanist movements, starting with the Renaissance from the 14th century to 16th centuries, that artists began to be recognized as individual thinkers worthy of expressing their own voice or style. And slowly over the following centuries culture began to tolerate, recognize (usually posthumously) and eventually reward self expression. Until finally in the 20th century the artist's personal voice and originality became the most fundamental measure of "successful" art.

But we must remember that our current view of art is just a temporary, cultural trend that will be surpassed by another. Originality and self expression are already showing signs of exhausting themselves in grotesque and absurd displays of egocentrism. 

Ironically contemporary art believes it has liberated itself from the traditional chains of aesthetic beauty and skill, by turning art into a pure mental exercise that more and more even celebrates the opposite (e.g. Catalan's banana sold for $6.2 million, in three separate "editions", but the "art" is nothing more than simple written instructions and a role of duct tape). Humorous, but is this art or just spectacle? Contemporary art has painted itself into a corner of growing irrelevance, intentionally manufactured exclusivity by a wealthy class that desperately needs to feel culturally superior by being the only ones sophisticated enough to "understand" art. To achieve this liberation, Contemporary art has (in general) thrown away thousands of years of philosophy, spirituality and beauty, and made a complete mockery of hard earned skill. 

Art will outlive this moment, and indeed artists have never stopped creating (continually practicing intentionally or unintentionally in line with the philosophies of every tradition). But if we want to nurture art that is timelessly valuable and encourage it's best potential, we must seek a much deeper view of art than what is being elevated contemporarily. And to do that, we must find a broad but workable definition of art. And then we should attempt to understand what elements make one piece of art more important than another.

So what is art at its most basic?

Art is the intentional creation or arrangement of elements beyond its utilitarian purpose, which intentionally communicates an idea or emotion.

Essentially any human act of creation could be considered "art" if presented in the right context, so it's problematic to define art in a restrictive way because exceptions always break the rule, e.g. when does a knife transition from utility to art? And indeed art should not be the exclusive domain of "artists" -- creation is a pleasurable and rewarding practice that should be encouraged for everyone. 

But if everything is art, and everyone is an artist, then the word also loses any useful meaning. Instead perhaps it's more useful to recognize that art is in the eye of the beholder, and yet there are certain qualities that make one piece of art "important" enough to be worthy of special attention and praise.

So without being too restrictive, and elitist, how can we determine what art to curate and promote? Some basic categories are useful to consider when evaluating art. Consider a 1-5 scale for each concept below. Good art doesn't necessarily have to score high in every category, e.g. one person may find a piece has low novelty but high narrative. But given enough people a general consensus and total score will emerge. These are not absolute judgments of value, ultimately history will decide what has permanence.

Attention — Would the art itself capture and hold your attention, regardless of context and explanation (e.g. even if it was propped up against a dumpster)?

Mastery — Does the art display a mastery of skill acquired through research and repetition (e.g. would the art be difficult to reproduce)?

Intention — Does the art show the artist's intent (e.g. not just randomness, but evident planning, research and objective).

Narrative — Does the art clearly communicate a concept, story or emotion (e.g. can the art be "understood" or felt on some personal level by everyone)?

Collaboration —  Does the art invite you to participate in a dialog between yourself and the artist/art (e.g. by igniting your imagination to fill in the details or act as a symbol that you understand yourself better)?

Novelty — does the art surprise, delight or intrigue you in some way (e.g. through the use of original materials, techniques, concepts or layers of meaning)?

Permanence — Does the art distinguish itself from daily life and other art to remain in your imagination (e.g. give you something you can take away and keep forever)?

What does that mean for you?

Using this framework, we can see why historical art continues to be relevant and appreciated today. But likewise, these questions cut through the bullshit of the contemporary art world, revealing why very few pieces will ever be remembered for more than an hour after the exhibition, let alone one hundred years.

As an artist, we can use this framework to guide our creative process and know when we have created something of value with sharing. This is important because not every experiment needs to end up in an exhibition. We must be constructively critical of our work, and leave room to fail without fear so we can grow. And we must be selective about what we share, in what context (e.g. with friends versus the broader community), because people's attention and time should be respected. And the value of art should also not be diminished by polluting the world with low quality or half-baked art. 

As a curator, this framework should help you select artists that will have a lasting impact, based on the art itself, not manufactured hype around their name, their curriculum, or the narrative they have constructed. When the quality of the art remains the focus, the exhibition will be much more successful because the art will capture attention, invite collaboration, be accessible to everyone, and remain a permanent memory. 

As a collector of art, this framework will help you understand where true long term value is found. Art should be purchased because you like the art itself, because you want to be surrounded by art that stimulates and inspires you daily. If you are collecting solely as an investment, based on "market" hype, you risk being swindled by elite market makers and changing culture. And what's the point of having all that money to spend if you don't enjoy what you bought. The greatest flex is buying art you love, just because you love it, regardless or even because it does not yet have any current "market value". Art in its pure unadulterated and uncapitalized form.