Q's and A's in The Philosophy of Art:

What is a work of art?

x is an artwork only if x is an imitation.
1. This reflects the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, and shows the core idea of the first systematic definition of art . Charles Batteux said that "in order to be fine art, it is necessary that something be an imitation of something else" , that "something else" is beautiful nature". However, modern abstract paintings seem to refute this definition.
x is an artwork only if x is a representation
2. This means that where something is a representation if it is intended to stand for something besides itself and others can recognize that it does so.
3. The neo-representational model: x is an artwork only if x has a subject about which it makes some comment.
This seems to be a favored model among philosophers in search of a definition of art. However, it does not claim that satisfying this condition is sufficient for being an artwork. Many sentences on this page satisfy this condition, but these sentences are not works of art. The core idea of neo-representationalism is that art always has some semantic content (including expressive content). A work of art may denote something and express an emotion toward it but expressive music remains a problem. A piece of music might express sadness, but what does it express sadness about?

What makes something a representation?
There are four basic proposals
Resemblance Theory: x represents y if only if x significantly resembles the look of y.This theory is widely rejected. An example of Resemblance theory is if two manufactured products are visually very similar, but neither represents the other. A counter argument example might be a visual design x pictorially represents y (which is not a visual design) if only if x significantly resembles the look of y.But this does not work either because a photo in an art history book is a visual design that both resembles and represents the painting that it pictures. "
Illusion Theory: x represents y if only if x causes the illusion that y is present. This is also rejected by most philosophers because who would really think that x is y? And if this was believed, why would we appreciate x if I thought I was looking at the real thing?. What would I be appreciating?Conventionalist or Semiotic Account Visual design x pictorially represents y if only if x denotes y in accordance with some established system of conventions. In other words, representation requires a conventional visual "language." Resemblance is a matter of being familiar with the governing conventions. This does not work either because if it were just a matter of convention, then new visual techniques would seem less realistic.
Neo-Naturalist Account:
This theory emphasizes recognition but not the deception of illusion Visual design x pictorially represents y if only if (1) x is intended to be recognized as featuring y in x by looking and (2) it is successfully recognized in this way and (3) x is intended to denote y, and (4) relevant viewers recognize that x denotes y. This theory also captures the fact that some people recognize what a picture denotes the very first time they see the picture, even if they've seen no other style.

How do we have representation in non-pictorial cases? For example, music and literature?
Unconditional - This requires no prior agreements or conventions. What we've already understood with pictorial representation: It allows us to recognize x in y. Lexical -requires a pre-established conventional code. What the conventionalist or semiotic approach claimed was generally the case. An example of this would be movements in ballet, or the halos above the heads of angels. Conditional would only succeed if the audience already knows what is being communicated. So, you can "see" x in y after you're told to look for x in y. Conditional generic only succeeds if the audience is looking for a denotation via representation. For example, in a game of charades, you're looking for x in y without knowing what x is.

How is it possible for art to be expressive?
Some art is not expressive, but a lot of art is. However, there are questions concerning this. People as well as animals are expressive in the literal sense of "expressive," having emotional and other mental properties that they reveal to others. But works of art are physical objects, repeatable structures, and other artifacts. This means that if something has no emotions, it cannot be expressive. But how can that be with art?
This rests on two philosophical claims: If artworks or their parts posses expressive properties, they must be capable of possessing mental properties, but these are not the kind of things that can bear mental properties.
Two ways to respond to the challenge:
1.Deny that artworks literally express anything: they only metaphorically do so.
2. Fight the challenge directly by attacking the two claims.

What is formalism?
x is a work of art if and only if x is designed primarily in order to possess and to exhibit significant form.
"Modern art arose when photography reduced the value of using traditional media to represent things." So representation theory no longer captured what artists were doing. This created a problem and the solution was formalism. This idea derives from Clive Bell. He asserted that "art is of interest for its significant form ( visual art is an organized visual arrangement/structure)" Even when it does represent something, the fact that it represents something is irrelevant to its status as art". So as a solution this theory shows that abstract art has no problem in counting as art.

Is it possible that art cannot have a definition?
Identifying something as art is important and is possible without being able to define art. The Neo-Wittgensteinian approach argues that art cannot be defined, yet it is easy to identify. This theory illustrates that very few things can be defined. However, they can still be identified . So art cannot because it is an open concept and it involves a concept that evolves as practices change. So because the practice of art is always open to change, we cannot expect to find sufficient conditions for being an artwork or having a specific definition.

What was Tolstoy's definition of art?
Tolstoy said that art cannot be defined as an activity which produces beauty. He asserted that beauty cannot be defined objectively and therefore cannot be used as to define what art is or what are is not. Tolstoy defines art as "an expression of a feeling or experience in such a way that the audience to whom the art is directed can share that feeling or experience". Tolstoy felt that art dis not belong to any particular class of society an that good art is intelligible and comprehensible. Bad art is unintelligible and incomprehensible. Tolstoy also claims that there can be a lack of sincerity in the artist. He argues that if an artist must earn a living by producing art, then the art which is produced is more likely to be false and insincere. Tolstoy claimed that this interpretation or criticism of art is irrelevant and unnecessary, because any good work of art is able to express thoughts and feelings which can be clearly understood by most people. Tolstoy does not believe that art can be taught, or that instruction in the practice of art can help people to communicate their thoughts and feelings more sincerely. He felt that if you teach art, you destroy the individuality of the artist. So any attempt to teach art to someone leads to someone who is just imitating other works of art. Tolstoy’s also uses another concept called "universal. This states that art is relevant to everyone. Art is relevant to every aspect of the human condition. Therefore, art must be made to be universal. Tolstoy asserts that art is universal if it expresses thoughts and feelings which can be experienced by every human being.
Tolstoy's exact definition:
"Art is that human activity which consists in one human consciously conveying to others, by certain external signs, the feelings he has experienced, and in others being
affected by those feelings and also experiencing them". What is Art?. 1898.
What is aesthetic experience?.
"Aesthetic experience is experience of a work’s aesthetic properties and formal relations". (Van Gerwin) However, this definition has problems when concerning the attribution of aesthetic properties and whether we detect them or if they are merely projected. Some philosophers suggest that the fact that we disagree about the attribution of aesthetic properties gives us reason to presume that aesthetic properties are objective.