I find it interesting that Webster's definition of art is inextricably linked from the concept of beauty.

I quote these pertinent definitions:
2a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2b. The study of these activities.
3b. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

To state it simply: art is the study and practice of beauty. And what, then, is beauty? Referring again to Webster:

1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.

Clearly, there is circularity. Let's overlook that problem. Instead, let's ask the question of whether jarring, discordant art can be beautiful? Can a painting or drawing of a disturbing or violent scene, or a photo of an ugly person be beautiful also?

What concerns me a bit about the defintion of art -- and the reason I was thinking about this in the first place -- is that it doesn't mention anywhere the concept of art as a mode of human expression, nee communication.

Is art nothing more than another form of communication? Is art created with the intent of communicating something? Clearly, there are artists who create their works with a sense of purpose -- a bold intent to communicate some idea or set of ideas. To them, their art works are encoded communications which we, the audience, must analyze, decode, and reconstruct. This happens at both conscious and unconscious levels. Then, there are other artists who paint or draw or photograph or write about a scene because there is "truth" or "beauty" or "movement" or "grace" in it and that is all. What do these artists' works communicate to us? We must look to understand the artist as much as we look to understand the work to answer this question. We must understand the person's personal experience, world view, cultural environment, and state of mind was at the time of creation. Context is crucial.

An photo of a shuttered lighthouse in a storm shot in black and white in the 1920s might be considered symbolic of the beacon of US industrialism snuffed out as the great depression descended. The same lighthouse shot in the 1960s might be symbolic of the loss of cultural beacons such as Martin Luthur King or John Lennon. And today, the same lighthouse might be a symbol used by a conservative religious group as a comment on the rise of secular cultural relativism.

The next time I consider a piece of art, I will begin with the questions: Who is the artist? In what context was this piece created? What clues does this information provide in interpreting what the work is communicating? Why? How?