Walk into any gallery and you’ll see it. That confused squint. Someone is staring at a blank white canvas or a pile of industrial bricks, quietly wondering, "Wait, is this actually it?" We’ve all been there. Defining what is a artwork used to be easy. If a guy in a powdered wig painted a landscape that looked exactly like a tree, it was art. If you sculpted a marble deity that looked like it might breathe, it was art.
But then the 20th century happened.
Marcel Duchamp flipped a urinal upside down in 1917, signed it "R. Mutt," and called it Fountain. The art world had a collective meltdown. Since then, the definition has drifted away from "pretty things made with skill" toward something much more slippery. It’s about intent. It's about the "Aha!" moment. Honestly, it’s kinda about whether you can convince a curator that your messy bedroom is a profound statement on human frailty (looking at you, Tracey Emin).
The Traditionalist Trap: Skill vs. Concept
For a long time, the answer to what constitutes an artwork was tied to mimesis. That’s just a fancy Greek word for imitation. The better you could copy reality, the "better" the art. Think of the Dutch Masters. They spent decades learning how to make silk look like silk using nothing but crushed earth and linseed oil.
Then came the camera.
Suddenly, if you wanted a perfect likeness of your aunt, you didn’t need a painter; you needed a tripod. This pushed creators to find a new purpose. Art stopped being a mirror and started being a lens. It became about how the artist felt or what they thought, rather than just what they saw. This is where people start to get annoyed. You hear it at the MoMA all the time: "My five-year-old could do that."
🔗 Read more: Progressive Car Insurance Cover Rental: What You Need to Know Before You Hit the Counter
Maybe. But they didn't.
That’s the nuance. An artwork isn't just the physical object. It’s the decision to isolate an idea and present it to the world. Philosopher Arthur Danto argued that what makes something art is an "atmosphere of art theory." Basically, it’s art because we, as a culture, have collectively agreed to treat it as such within a specific context. It’s a bit like money. A twenty-dollar bill is just a piece of linen paper, but we’ve all agreed it has value. Without that shared belief, it’s just scrap.
The Three Pillars of What Is a Artwork
If we're being practical, most experts look for three specific things when trying to categorize something as a legitimate work of art.
First, there is Agency. This is the big one. An artwork requires a conscious creator. A sunset is beautiful, sure. A rock formation might look like a face. But they aren't artworks because there’s no human intent behind them. They are natural phenomena. Art requires a "Who."
Second, you have Medium. This is the "What." It used to be limited to paint, stone, or bronze. Now? It’s everything. It’s code. It’s performance. It’s even the absence of things. In 1958, Yves Klein opened an exhibition called Le Vide (The Void). It was an empty gallery. People paid to look at white walls. He was selling the experience of space. While it sounds like a prank, it forced the audience to consider the gallery itself as the object.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, is Communication. Art is a bridge. It’s an attempt to move a feeling or an idea from one brain to another. If I scribble on a napkin to test a pen, it’s garbage. If I frame that napkin because those scribbles represent the frantic heartbeat of a city, it’s (arguably) an artwork. The difference is the message.
Why Does Some Art Feel Like a Scam?
Let’s be real. The art market is weird.
In 2019, Maurizio Cattelan duct-taped a banana to a wall at Art Basel Miami Beach. He called it Comedian. It sold for $120,000. People were furious. Was it a joke? Yes. Was it art? Also yes. The "artwork" wasn't the banana—bananas rot, after all. The artwork was the certificate of authenticity and the set of instructions on how to replace the fruit.
This brings up a huge point about modern definitions: The Object is Not the Art. In many cases, the physical thing you see is just a placeholder for an idea. Conceptual art focuses on the "why" more than the "how." If you go into a museum expecting to be impressed by someone’s steady hand, conceptual art will always feel like a rip-off. But if you go in looking for a puzzle or a provocation, it starts to make sense.
✨ Don't miss: Pawn America Rice Street: What Most People Get Wrong About This St. Paul Landmark
Digital Shifts and the AI Question
We can't talk about what an artwork is in 2026 without mentioning the elephant in the server room. Generative AI.
Can a machine create an artwork? If you prompt a model to "paint a cat in the style of Van Gogh," who is the artist? The person who wrote the prompt? The engineers who built the model? The thousands of dead artists whose work was used to train the data?
Currently, the U.S. Copyright Office says no. They’ve repeatedly ruled that AI-generated images lack "human authorship." This is a massive line in the sand. It suggests that "artwork" is a strictly human category. We value the struggle. We value the hand. We value the fact that a person had a specific, messy, emotional reason to create something. A machine doesn't have a "reason." It has an algorithm.
However, many artists are using AI as a tool, much like a brush. Refik Anadol uses massive datasets to create "fluid" sculptures that react to real-time data. In this case, the artwork isn't just the output; it's the custom-built system the artist designed to process the world.
How to Actually Look at Art (Without Feeling Like an Idiot)
When you're trying to figure out if something "counts" as an artwork, stop looking for beauty. Beauty is subjective and, frankly, a bit boring after a while. Instead, ask these three questions:
- What is the artist trying to say? Even if the answer is "I'm bored," that’s a start.
- Why did they choose this specific material? Using gold leaf means something very different than using rusted scrap metal.
- How does it make me feel? Even if that feeling is "I hate this," the work has succeeded in moving you. Indifference is the only true failure in art.
The definition of what is a artwork is ultimately a moving target. It’s a conversation between the creator and the viewer. It’s an invitation to see the world through someone else's distorted, brilliant, or totally bizarre perspective.
Actionable Steps for the Aspiring Collector or Critic
If you want to move beyond the "I don't get it" phase, start by engaging with art in a more structured way. Don't just scroll.
🔗 Read more: Why the Knotty Pine Pub in Wharton is the Best Bar You’ve Never Heard Of
- Visit a local gallery, not just the big museums. Big museums show "settled" art—stuff that’s already been decided is important. Local galleries show "unsettled" art. It’s raw, weird, and much easier to talk to the creators about.
- Read the "Plinth Text." Those little white cards next to the paintings? Read them. They provide the context that turns a pile of trash into a commentary on consumerism.
- Follow the process, not the product. Watch "Process" videos on YouTube or Instagram. Seeing the hours of labor that go into a single piece of ceramic or a digital painting changes your appreciation for the final result.
- Trust your gut. You don't have to like everything. In fact, you shouldn't. Part of understanding what an artwork is involves defining your own taste. If you think the duct-taped banana is stupid, that’s a valid critical stance—as long as you can explain why.
Art isn't a test you pass or fail. It’s a language. And like any language, the more you "speak" it, the more the world opens up. Start by looking at one thing today—a mural on a wall, a piece of jewelry, a weirdly shaped building—and ask yourself why someone spent their limited time on earth making it. That's where the art begins.