Do artists care about defining their work? Or if they do, should they? Do art lovers care about the definition of art? Or if they do, should they? What does it say if we claim that art is about beauty or that something is art if it is put in a certain context (for example a museum)? I don’t care too much for a definition of art. However, if you do, here is a good essay. I, on the other hand, think that art should not be overintellectualized. Now, it seems that philosophers have to come to rescue art, to justify it with fancy words and theories in curatorial essays. References to Derrida and Foucault in catalogs are the rule these days. Art, though, can say something philosophy cannot. Art can show what we cannot say. To see this, we should engage with art works. This is a physical engagement – to experience art in the stomach. As soon as we ask ourselves the question what the meaning is of a certain artwork we have to realize that the artwork did not succeed. A good artwork does not make one ask the question ‘why?’. Questions about brush strokes and camera standpoints are secondary. Looking at details makes a physical engagement impossible. A great artwork is felt in the stomach.