(Witcombe, 11) This statement was in ironic mockery of the Renaissance tradition which had placed the artist in a dignified position. (Witcombe, 11) For the duration of the twentieth century, this position had complicated and undermined how art was perceived, but at the same time it fostered a broader, more inclusive assessment of art. (Witcombe, 11).
From all this we should conclude that social context plays a key role in determining what art is or even if it is. Evidence from many cultures around the world, show that the very notice of art is culture dependent; thus, what might appear as an object that aids in drinking water in India, could be in a museum case in America. (Goguen, 6) Furthermore, some cultures do not even consider the notion of what art is. The American Indian language is one such language that does not include such a word as art. (Delahunt, 3) Additionally, the Japanese only created such a word after coming into contact with European ideas. (Delahunt, 3) Clearly, Western traditions have had a big impact on what art is; yet, as the Western tradition is evolving to the point where anything can be presented as an art object, the consideration of what art is around the world, is evolving too.
Yet, according to artists, museum curators, art patrons, art educators, art critics, art historians, and others involved with art, art follows some rules that characterize what is considered art today.(Delahunt, 2) One rule is that art at least engages some degree of human involvement. (Delahunt, 1) Either by manual skills or thought, humans are in someway involved with art. Another way to understand this is with the word "artificial", meaning made by humans instead of by nature. (Webster, 1) Yet, that still does not give a clear definition of what art is. As the famous American musical satirist, Frank Zappa once said, "Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
