I have no intention of trying to invalidate your very good attempt at a definition. As much as I could say that the “hello boys” wonderbra advert was intended to stimulate awareness of aesthetic merit - yet wouldn’t really be considered art then throw it all out, it would just be cheeky.
The point I was making is that you appointed yourself judge and jury for this idea of defining art here when people weren’t considering themselves on trial - or if they were, weren’t aware of the guidelines and framework of rules you had decided to apply to either pass or entirely demerit.
Below we have the approximate, generalised wording I had suggested, really as an attempt to move the conversation on and back to the actual topic of this thread, without feeling it was going to be judged and picked apart against unspecified criteria; and we have your formalised definition that you wrote in full knowledge of what you would apply.
There really isn’t much difference in them. The only significant difference is that I didn’t specify that the conceptual work had the express primary purpose of aesthetic appreciation and the accompanying emotional response.
Your response was essentially that other things are pretty too unintentionally so that definition’s no good.
A lot of bickering and frustration could have been avoided by simply framing it as, ‘close but no cigar’ I feel this is too open, but with a little editing by specifying the primary purpose it’s pretty much good