Listening to him, I was reminded of something I once wrote about aesthetics. Similar to his idea, but applied specifically to art. Four years ago when I put it in writing, the idea was still kind of new to me and I have since fleshed it out more thoroughly in my mind, however, I don't feel enough motivation right now to write it out, instead I will copy and past the original:
when visiting my brother he made a comment to my sister and I about how we may not even like his art if it was not made by him. i realized it is probably impossible to tell, but even if it is so i don't think it means my like for his art is any less real. isn't that all art is anyway? associations? i know i have numerous times grown to like a certain piece or certain type of art because i grow to associate it with a certain person or idea.
i think we can have conditioned associations: our bodies relating a piece to a certain experience, person or idea and also inherent associations like images that evoke nature or sex, things most people have evolved to be naturally drawn to.
our bodies might see certain shapes, lines or colors and associate them with things it knows might make them feel good or pleasant experiences or people from the past, or conversly if the artist is attempted to create a negative association. so it is my opinion that art is merely creating associations for people allowing others to transcend the world we normally associate with into one more purely based on the emotion trying to be expressed. transcending the body and creating a more pure emotional communication. more pure because it is less confined than words have a tendency to be, which can express an idea but often not the emotion behind the idea.
so an important relationship can exist between art and words. you can explain to someone a concept, then if a piece of art is accurately executed, it can then convey the emotion of that concept. i think this is what is called art.