The difficulty here is the nature of art itself. Because art relies so much upon perception, it is difficult to even define what art is, and what it is not. Every definition will lead you to problems. Consider the basic act of creation. We could try to make the argument that at the very least, art requires that someone created it. But what about a painting done by an elephant? Or a robot? What if it is unknown what created the piece? There are countless similar caveats in establishing a definition. Some might consider the right approach to be to first establish an agreeable definition of art, and then from there, to set about answering the question. However, in doing so, you are no longer talking about the entirety of art, but a subset of what might be considered art. Of course, there is nothing wrong with settling the question within an agreed upon context, but it doesn't really settle the mysterious aspect of the question, and isn't entirely satisfying in the case of art. For many subjects, workable definitions are easier to agree upon. But art defies definition. Oddly, if we agree upon a context for what we consider to be art, and then we might say that to the extent that art can be communicated, it might be taught. However, even then, there is negative space to communication that can lead us to understand things that we were never taught, and evidence of this kind of understanding arises in art all the time. There can be little doubt that some people are more prone than others to spend their time and energy in a creative space, and that some are more receptive to expression than others. But art does not only arise from those that set out to create it, and for those that do, it doesn't always reveal itself as intended. So my answer is: Art can and cannot be taught.
This is exactly the problem humanodon and I ran up against in our initial PM conversation. And reading through the comments, looks like it's a common stumbling block for everybody. For almost every post, there's a different definition of what art is. I arrived at my own definition in our conversation that I think both humanodon and I could get behind more or less, but in the end, any definition is going to run up against more or less arbitrary boundaries. Which, ironically enough, helps kind of answer the question, doesn't it? If art defies definition, if it's kind of a "know it when you see it" thing, how can it ultimately be taught? Which is I guess more or less the inverse of what you're getting at above: For the record, I think part of what makes art "art" and not technical writing or computer science or something is a confluence of intentional, directed movement with the presence, on some plane or another, of intuitive, a-logical design. If there's an easily defined formula to your art, then I'm not sure it's art, since art relies on a certain absence of logic. Which, leading to your question about robots and elephants- no, I'm not sure a robot can create art. But I'm less sure that the robot built to create art isn't an artwork in and of itself. Like the program that guy made to mimic classical composers. If the music itself is dictated by algorithm, then it's missing a key component of true art. But the program itself! Wow. Because it raises more questions than it answers, and it forces us to confront some uncomfortable implications about human creativity, and the nature of art. Wheels within wheels, man. The elephant who paints? Who knows? Maybe, yeah. That said, just because something is art doesn't mean it's good art. I can agree that anybody, including elephants, can paint without having to grant that all art is created equal. So if we allow for the presence of less effective art, it might soften the chore of defining art in the first place, and indeed offer some insight into what makes art what it is. If we know something is bad or good, and we can identify why, that implies something about the fundamental nature of the thing, doesn't it? None of that answers anything. I don't know, This is why humanodon's question was so cool, though.if we agree upon a context for what we consider to be art... then we might say that to the extent that art can be communicated, it might be taught.