Interesting objects and art

What is art? It’s a hard question to answer. In the grand tradition of renaming things that people already have names for that work fine the majority of the time, i wanted to share my thoughts and definitions which cause further confusion and further breakages in different areas.

An interesting object is an object that is interesting. It makes someone who is experiencing it feel interested in what it is and why it is. An interesting object might not be interesting to everyone or even anyone, but it has the potential to be interesting to someone. An interesting object does not necessarily depend on its physical properties or its historical properties, but both can be the attribute that causes something to be considered an interesting object.

Many things that are considered artworks are interesting objects. In fact i would go so far as to say that most things that are considered artworks are interesting objects, because for something to be considered an artwork it almost certainly has something about it that has the potential to be interesting to someone.

Lots of things which are conventionally considered art are in fact merely interesting objects. The intention of art must be art. The intention of art is not its function, but its emotion. The reason for making art cannot be financial incentive, or commission. At the same time, none of these things directly nullify a thing’s right to be considered art.

With this definition, most works of art cease to be works of art. As a huge number of artists in history worked for money, should we consider those works not to be art, but merely to be interesting objects? Following my own definitions, then yes. But i’m not yet certain on these definitions, so i’m not completely sure.