Now that we have at least a loose understanding of what a medium is in the context of media theory, let's take a stab at the other portion of this page's concern, that being a definition of art. To keep things in-house, I would like to define art in the context of media theory; in short, I would like to define art as a specific type of medium.
​
Defining art on its face is an extremely difficult task; this is due to its interpretive nature. But why should this be a roadblock to us? It is, in my view, the interpretive nature of art which also provides the simplest route towards its categorization. With this in mind, I elect to define art as follows:
This definition, unlike our last one, is not so cut and dry, but this seems fitting considering the subject at hand. "Art is media" seems a relatively uncontroversial statement, but "meant to be interpreted" is a phrase which itself can be interpreted in many ways, which is by intention. The ambiguity in this phrase allows one to adjust their definition of art to suit a given context. For example, one might say that all media should, in fact, be interpreted. In this case, all media would be classified as art, which to me seems perfectly legitimate. Alternatively, one might argue that "meant to be interpreted" refers to the intention of the artist. In this case, our scope is very much narrowed, but we are given a new context in which to theorize which might allow us to reach understandings in a more efficient manner. All of this is of course hypothetical, but I believe it at least begins to illustrate the merit of such a definition as this one.
A Definition of Art by Will Bortin
Art: "Media that is meant to be interpreted."
Part 2: What is Art?