The only fact about art is that it is a language, besides this, there if no conclusive definition because along with its practice and evolution of it being bound to a paradigm-breaking nature there is also the subjective aesthetic experience that it creates on the perceiver. The distinction between good and bad art is rendered useless if we accept the subjectivity of both art as a language and of the aesthetic experience of the perceiver. The second part deals with the socio-economical context on which art-making process is done. Art will not flourish as long as it is subjected to a business-like structure, to the whim of the capital.

Languages are meant to provide a common ground for human understanding by means of communication. The mathematical language creates a common ground for abstract ideas; it is the most objective of human languages and in this sense, it describes reality as it is. Oral communication-based languages allow us to give concrete descriptions about our reality but from a not so objective point of view; these languages describes things as they seem to us, nevertheless they allow for agreement. Few people would argue that art is not meant to communicate something, however, it is difficult to accurately define this object of communication –what art is meant to communicate. If the aesthetic experience is posited as the object of communication for art, it has to be defined as ‘input’ received by the senses and interpreted by the brain in a sensible way. Sensibility is related to emotions or feelings, which are abstract constructions. In this sense, sensibility is the abstract and subjective side of artistic language; the concrete side is the sense-perceived component of the aesthetic experience.