| Chrkeller said: The problem with a broad definition of art is everything becomes art. When I do scanning electron microscopy of structures.... if I want it to look pleasing to the eye, suddenly my chemical analysis is art..... |
Granted, literature and music aren't made to be pleasing to the eye, but are arts nonetheless. The are paintings that are anything pleasing to see either. I think the question is the less about being aesthetic pleasing, and more about being evocative. If it's intentionally emotionally evocative, something that can't be appreciated in a completely practical way, then maybe it can be considered art
For instance, I consider gastronomy arts. It's a mixing of design (because it involves engineering things in a clever and creative way) and arts (because it can be a place for free expression and evocative reaction to people who eats the food). The purpose of food is 100% practical, which is to be eat, while gastronomy on itself can be an art
