Response to Andrea

To attempt to answer your question and touch on additional things that you mentioned in your post, I have two opinions.
First off, I'll try to answer your question, to which I think that the necessity to try and define art is more significant than it seems. Mostly because if we could come to some sort of concrete answer as to what art is and why, then lots of other things would become certainly much easier to answer by classification. Additionally, it is a frustrating thing to have a word that everyone in the world knows and understands, but can't be truly defined in a concrete manor. All in all, it would be nice if there were some sort of constant that we could agree on and attempt to hold against any formidable question.
Secondly, there is the string of comments that you left in your last paragraph, to which I think are very interesting. I think that the idea of philosopher's not defining words and ideas is incorrect; in fact I almost feel it’s the opposite. To my understanding, philosophy is a practice of unbiased understanding and proving of truth, to which defining art is a paramount example. To look at art philosophically is but to understand what art is and why it is significant to all things that it affects.

Do you still disagree?