Why “definition”?

I can hear people thinking: “Seriously, Vessie? Today we have no definition of art?That’s impossible, there is so much art happening, and a lot of it so good! What you are saying is simply not true.”

Well, for centuries and millennia there was no physics and engineering. Yet buildings and structures were built that still make us marvel and wonder today. Those were only a select few here and there. In the last few centuries, however, with the laws of science systematically defined and explained, is it fair to state that the human ability to build, construct, and invent has been greatly enhanced?

Last night I was watching the Oscars. A commercial for MGM resorts came on. A good one. I think this sums up our present definition of arts as used currently.

What’s the problem with it? How one defines “to wow”. One knows it when one sees it, but that’s about it. And it comes from the receiving end – the one being wowed. It says nothing about the one who is supposed to create the wowing. They get up and start work by staring into space, into a blank sheet of paper, with only examples of “wow” already done, and if lucky (I don’t believe in luck!) – an undefined sense and urge for something even they don’t know what, that we call inspiration.

So there you have it. What’s wrong with this? Plenty, I think.