Actually, no. Art exists, at least empircally, only in the human mind. My assertion is that art contians this, or at least a variation of this. It is the fusion of motion, dynamic or static, with the human mind, that is art. To lurch a little deep as I elaborate; Art doesn't exist on the canvis, it exists in a virtual universe between the mind and the canvis. In that virtual universe, what you see looks and awful lot like what those birds are doing.


Interesting. I engaged in a similar discussion recently after which I came to the following definition: Art is the purposeful creation of beauty, with the one who intentionally designed this beauty being the artist, and that "art" is thereby subjective based on what one considers to be "beautiful," and maybe even on what one considers to be "purposeful" and/or "intentional."

But really that's just two different aspects of art and how to define it. Yours seems to go a little deeper into how one determines what is "beautiful" to themselves and what is not.