So I'm in capstone this term (basically a theatre thesis class) if anyone I know happens to read this, then please don't spoil the surprises for everyone else, I'm keeping some ideas here so they'll be easily accessible from multiple points e.g. any computer ever.
Art is a synthetic construct, entirely dependent upon the audience for existence. Art has no nature of it's own. It is the most difficult thing to define ever.
Is this art? (Van Gogh poster or something)
Is it still art? (rip poster in half)
How much of it has to be torn off and thrown away until it is no longer art?
You can't answer this because you cannot define art. No one can.
I can't define art, but I know the nature of it.
Art is nothing more than applied philosophy, thoughts about the nature of things put into some form or another. Now that may sounds dangerously close to a proposed definition, but it isn't (for reasons I will determine later, expound of the difference of nature and define)
Plato claims that art is almost as far as you can get from the form of something, as it is a representation of a representation of a form.
Gonna think more on this later.