Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

ok lets address your first argument: Your definition is art is based on the concept of an individuals expression being based on what is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. my definition is a creative skill put forth in a way that can be seen. one doesn't have anything to do with another. 1. someone can express a creative skill such as painting based on my definition, but if its not aesthetically pleasing, then its not art based on your definition. in addition, if something is found to be beautiful by people, i.e. a person expressing himself by throwing paint on the floor, but there was no skill involved then it doesn't meet my definition. still proving that art has no set definition and can only exist to the person defining it, if someone doesn't define art then they don't believe in it and it is an unproven concept. 2. happiness is never brought up in either definition, that's just something that you took it mean("this picture on the wall that is someone's expression of life makes me happy, therefore this picture must be art"). Even if i grant you that your interpretation is ok, it still proves my argument which is that art is based on belief. it is a unproven concept that people choose to accept, like religion, but is not based on anything factual, and i don't believe in it. personally im happy when im well rested, does that mean rest is art? your next argument, 1. your running away with this "everything is art" and "happiness is art" idea. i already address this in my 2nd point of my last argument. but to add to it, you're assuming that everyone has known happiness. that is not a proven fact. even if it was, many people would argue that happiness doesn't equate to art, like to 2 people that defined the word for us. neither use the idea that happiness is a factor in determining what art is. 2. further, a lot of people that would meet your original definition of art, ie, someone that painted a beautiful painting, may not be happy. lots of people express themselves for example by painting aesthetically pleasing pictures because they are depressed or miserable. some can only do it when they are in that state. your last arguement 1. i think your missing my point about art. I'm saying that art exists about as must as God, Allah, or Buddha do. all are concepts that people have chosen to except as their reality despite the inability to provide proof that they exist. art has been accepted by millions of people all with their own opinion of what is and no way to tell them they are wrong. i can think a painting is a really cool painting or a dancer is very talented but that doesn't mean the picture or the dance is art. again my argument still holds true that it is an unproven concept. it is based on a persons personal opinion and if someone doesn't accept any of the definitions and chooses not to define it then they don't believe in art. that means art is not their reality. 2. and 2nd the sky isn't actually blue. its every color in a prism but the gas molecules that exist in our atmosphere only absorb blue light and scatter it in many directions. so i guess that means that im valid in denying that art is reality huh? your argument is basically about art being happiness and beauty and anyone knowing happiness knows art. then you said everyone knows happiness so that means art exists. my point, which i think you've failed to address, is that thats your opinion and you're not wrong for it. nor are the people that created either of the definitions that we used in this debate. thats why im right that art is an unproven concept. anyone can call anything art and be right by their definition murder, pictures, music, nature, stripping, whatever you want. or a person can not accept any of the definitions and not believe in it all. good debate...thanks for being my opponent