Art and creativity

Debates are held on the subject of how to define art, so I'll offer you my opinion based on common knowledge.

Etymology- art derives from latin and greek and means - skill, craft, complete. At first it was a figurative expression of cognition and comprehension of reality. Meaning: humans first tried to draw on the walls in their caves, trying to represent what they saw around them, developing skills and creating new forms of art. Later on art evolved and became a source of aesthetic pleasure, a way to capture great moments and forms in order to contemplate them or make them 'eternal/immortal', thus art started to resemble human love to the great and beautiful, as well as it connected with religion, science, history and the mother of all- philosophy: reflecting the devine, scientific researches, historical events. So the main point seemed to be a result, not just a process of creating. A lot of people can be creative and end up with creating something worthful, but to precisely convert reality or your imagination into a piece of art you need skills. So, to me it is obvious that throughout history there were such things involved : cognition, comprehension, skills and creativity on their highest level, the thing is that all those evolve, develop or just change if you will, as time goes by.

So, my definition of art would be something like this: art is a form of creativity, based on the highest level of cognitive thinking (: abstract thinking, ability to conceptualize on a large scale) and well developed skills, resulting in an unprecedented flawless piece of work.

Art doesn't necessarily have to be beautiful. And there aren't really any lines to cross. I think I've just found that quality, that was escaping me all this time: the difference between art and just creativity is art improves your culture. Being the highest form of creaitvity, a piece of art bears such concept or connotation, that when exposed to it, you immediately level up and make a step forward in your conscious, intellectual, mental, social, spiritual, emotional etc development.

Art institutions in a non-profit highly developed society would be perhaps the most important ones, as their goal would be a constant exploration of the products and results of mankind's creativity to collect the best out of it in order to spread and exhibit it around the world with the purpose of cultural improvement. Art spots would be the places of high mental and emotional stimulation. (perhaps even physical - imagine some sort of a futuristic cosmology museum where you are exposed to the images, sculptures, video installations or items from outter space, while experiencing lack of gravity ). If art was that developed, available and free- in our society would be no drug abuse or depression problems, because there would be always something people could occupy themselves with, something that is always one step ahead, can blow your mind and highly motivate you to find out more or get involved into. Unfortunately this isn't the case in our society. Even if an art institution is non-profit, it is still sponsored by someone, thus it is under the influence of their policies and politics, the main aspect of which within our current socio-economic system is profit.

What we basically have since after the WWI and II is Reactionary Creativity (some call it reactionary art, but I prefer creativity, based upon everything I've said about art).  People express anger, unsatisfaction, depression or just lack of motivation and interest through creativity, their reaction to the miserable state in which world society is. People respond to that kind of 'art' because nearly everyone can relate to it. Everything else with little exception seems to be either nonsensical and absurd or pathetic escapism or repetition of what has been already done before.