Art was mentioned today at work:

Art is about function.

"Hammer" is the word for a tool that does something, 'push a nail into wood,' is one of its many possible uses and therefore functions. Interestingly, other objects can do the same things a hammer can do, perhaps better or worse. Additionally a hammer can be used for something completely different. Perhaps to cool off your forehead by placing the metal fitting flat against it.

Basically there are problems that requires a solution and the hammer, while not the only solution, provides the correct function to solve the problem.

I can 'push a nail into wood' with a brick. I could also, after some struggle, do the same with a quarter. Solely because a quarter does not fulfill this function very well does not disqualify it from a list of objects which could 'push a nail into wood.' The same can be said of any art piece.

For example, I enjoy pushing a nail into wood with a brick. I find it incredibly satisfying and I prefer it over a hammer or quarter or rubber mallet or anything else that I know of to solve this particular problem of pushing nails into wood.

So what does art do for you? Is its only function to you to be identified as Art? I believe art is an umbrella term for the infinite possibilities of feelings or ideas or combinations, of which many items could fulfill or inspire. Just as the brick, hammer, and quarter - there are many art works in galleries and museums which are supposed to fill the elusive function of art. Perhaps the work in those galleries and museums are more appropriately art just as a 'nail-pusher' with a wood stock and a metal fitted head to bang nails and other hard items (hammer) as opposed to a brick. This however does not disqualify my experience, that produced the same feelings insider me of which an art work in the gallery may have, from being an art work itself. After all they have had the same effect on me, through my own experiential lens, that which is the only way I can truly experience something. Why would I believe when someone tells me that my experience was not art? That I should instead look at the painting and relish in its art-ness. Why does that have more merit?

Therefore, everything through a lens, even the lens of your own thoughts, is art, not necessarily successful art or recognizable art. But that doesn't exclude it all from being art.

This idea of art is at least more interesting and seemingly healthy than the model based on intentionality. Because then that way of looking completely excludes accidents that occur during the creation of a work from being valid. Plus people will lie if they feel pressured to explain complete intentionality over their work. Which brings me to the fact that judging art based on intentionality is mainly an ego activity and values voluntary thought and action far too much. The best thing, and most elusive thing about art is that it is hardly descriptive of any physical attribute. There is no anatomy of art like there is an anatomy of a hammer. Ah, but what about the anatomy of an object that can 'push nails into wood.'