What is art?

 When I was young, I wanted to be a short-story writer. It seemed to me that writing could be an art. But the whole idea of art was fuzzy to me. I decided that if I were going to pursue a career in the literary arts, I’d better find out what art was.

I went to the philosophy department of the state university seeking help.

A philosopher from Ireland, James Treanor, was teaching in Texas then. He suggested that I read Tolstoy’s essay “What Is Art?” He said he’d be curious what I could make of it.

I can barely remember that version of myself, and I’m not sure that I said anything to professor Treanor that made sense.

It’s been 53 years since we had that conversation. If I could have it again, I think I’d say that the idea of art is this: If there is an art to an activity, it can be practiced. It’s something that can done well — or not.

Art is not a thing — a painting or a sculpture or play. That is a work of art. The art is in the approach to that creative activity. If there is an art in this activity, it can be practiced, i.e. improved. It can be done well or badly.

We’ve gotten into the business of making judgments about what’s better or worse, good and bad. We can argue about that. We can try to find consensus.

That’s the best I can do after all those years. No revelations — just a first step.

But I think that thinking of art as an approach or a perspective, rather than a thing, is a step forward. Philosophical problems are often like that: We confound ourselves when we mistake perspectives for things.