I agree with the text's definition of Art. I, of course, employ both the subjective form of art, as in discourse, and how many people feel about art or what they consider art to be, by definition in one's own opinion, while also referring to actual artwork, objectively. I think the text described both forms as well. It described art objectively as a creative expression based on human experience and human culture. However, it also described art subjectively as to compare it to a boundless "thing". This latter description really incorporates many, many forms of art consideration. I agree that art is a medium of human experience with many benefits of usage through its form. Art allows people to convey their feelings, project ideas, record history, educate, motivate, satiate, and offer insight and perspective. In turn, art evokes intellect, emotions, and carries messages to and from the artist. Webster does not have enough pages to describe art and completely cover every aspect when considering the definition both subjectively and objectively in all aspects considered or not considered, which is where many artists like to be, in a unique space. Subjectively and arguably objectively, life as we know it is a form of art itself. Therefore, the definition of art carries a mass infinite meaning that everyone attempts to cover in conveying, describing, and/ or employing, all of us. Art is Life.
