The philosopher and theologian, Francis Schaeffer, once said,
Unlike modern man, the men of the day did not live in a splintered world. Art was an intimate part of life. What is represented had more than an aesthetic value divorced from considerations of truth and religious significance.
Schaeffer reminds us that art reflects a particular worldview. In the same manner the art of the medieval man reflected his holistic worldview, the art of the modern man reflects his splintered, disconnected, compartmentalized view of the world. If each individual is his or her own source of truth, then anything and everything becomes art. Think Andy Warhol.
It would follow, it seems, that if everything is art, then, really, nothing is art. If the stuccoed track home is art the same way the grand architecture of an English manor is art, then beauty becomes subjective and arbitrary. And if beauty is subjective and arbitrary, then the word beauty has lost its meaning.
Speaking in terms of literary purpose, Horace asserted art is meant to enlighten and delight.
In a world where nothing is really art, because everything is art, and by definition beauty has no meaning, what is delightful and enlightening about art?
In a world where truth and religious significance is splintered, disconnected, and compartmentalized because all worldviews are equally meaningful, can art be considered meaningful?