Usually it seems to the recipient of a truly artistic impression that he knew the thing before but had been unable to express it.
We are accustomed to understand art to be only what we hear and see in theatres, concerts, and exhibitions; together with buildings, statues, poems, novels…. But all this is but the smallest part of the art by which we communicate with each other in life. All human life is filled with works of art of every kind – from cradle-song, jest, mimicry, the ornamentation of houses, dress and utensils, up to church services, buildings, monuments, and triumphal processions. It is all artistic activity. So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which we for some reason select from it and to which we attach special importance.
To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colours, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling – this is the activity of art.
Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience them.
To see the aim and purpose of art in the pleasure we get from it, is like assuming … that the purpose and aim of food is the pleasure derived when consuming it.
All attempts to define absolute beauty in itself – whether as an imitation of nature, or as suitability to its object, or as a correspondence of parts, or as symmetry, or as harmony, or as unity in variety, etc. either define nothing at all, or define only some traits of some artistic productions, and are far from including everything that everybody has always held, and still holds, to be art.
There is no objective definition of beauty.