Any one- or two-sentence definition of art, especially one from Wikipedia, should probably be approached with caution. While such definitions may seem declaratively simple and, therefore, attractive, they are far more likely to be simplistic and therefore worthy of the trash can ... or stool, as the case may be. Since the first Wikipedia def leaves out ancient pottery, much or some of which was not intended “to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power,” it fails, IMO. Since the second definition is tautological/redundant, since it defines an art object as an “artistic creation,” I’d demote its author from fourth to third grade. I think of definitions of art as a series of multi-layered Venn Diagrams where some of the circles are left unfinished, an open-ended dialogue with a multiplicity of clear and obscure overlapping ideas both vying with each other and clinging to each other, transmogrifying over time, and all that mumbo jumbo of words I just wrote being written on a child’s magic erasing slate, to be shook up at will. It’s not that art defies definition. It’s that it defies any one definition. It’s not that the “intention to ...” isn’t relevant and insightful. It’s that it’s not sufficient or necessary.