Here’s my idea of art, which you could have found if you did a little searching. You’ll see a lot of other definitions in the same discussion. This is a reaction to the “is nature art?” portion of my definition. It is penned by kruger_d, and it is much more concise than mine, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. I quote it here:
Art is by definition a human expression. When you decribe your reactions to nature you are speaking of an aesthetic experience, an experience that draws on your senses. Both can be unpleasant or pleasant or even euphoric, but there is a distinct difference.
Art is a way of shaping human experience including, but not limited to, our experiences with nature. Artists are inspired by nature and often seek to mimic its colors, patterns, rhythm, visual balance both in realistic and abstract forms.
Also, there is faulty logic in responses like ” my kid sister. . .” If we use that as a condition for an object being art, than we are dismissing the art of children, which often has explosive expression. I prefer to cast a wide net in defining art, and then have the discussion “Is this good art?” which is a whole other ballgame.
There are also things written by Harp about the role of intention and “found” art that you should find interesting. Anyway, if this is homework, you’ll find a lot of ideas there. Just make sure you cite them properly. I trust you wouldn’t copy work here and pass it off as your own. Just remember, if your teacher googles your text, he’ll find it easily. If it isn’t homework, I apologize for being so snippy.
I’m not sure what your concepts question is about. Does that mean other definitions of art? You’ll find them all over the place here, if you look.