In a recent debate in a chat, two people asserted the notion that a creative work is only art when it has no other function. Art is functionless (or so they said).
I question this, because art is rarely accidental. Someone acts with intent to produce it, with some goal in mind for their actions. Surely this goal, whatever it may be, gives the final object a function? Even if this goal is only to produce beauty, please the senses, or create some piece of mass so they can call it art, aren't these all functional in some way? Just as a toilet functions to take waste away from us, art functions to bring something to us, to our conciousness or to our senses.

My own definition of art would be communication. Art gets an idea or feeling from one mind to another*. Functional objects that also do this are part of art, though they are not necesarily good, or the best art. That which focuses more on communication than function, or integrates communication deeply into its function, I would consider more art. I believe it is a sliding scale, not a yes or no state.


Of course, then there is the argument about good art. I would suggest that this is dependant on the quality of the communication, and that is dependant on the qualities that are valued by the receiver of the message. But since I'm a (post)-postmodernist, I'd think that, wouldn't I?

Thoughts?