Mark Kingwell explains what art shouldn't be.

[A]rt’s power to excite wonder is, and should be, qualitatively different from philosophy’s. They may often be related, as when a powerful work calls forth a train of thought impossible otherwise or situates one suddenly in a world of meaning, “lifting a corner of the veil,” as Einstein said of numbers. Wonder has many sources and occasions, including natural ones. But the special status enjoyed by art, much disputed though it is, rests finally on its artificial and sensuous arousal of “rapt attention,” to use Heidegger’s phrase. It opens a clearing of thought and feeling. The mistake at the heart of too much conceptual art is its lack of openness, the implicit project of intellectual control, as if ideas could always be prethought and precaptured. The work is not allowed to be simply the work, and the result is not an act of philosophical aggression against art but an act of aesthetic aggression against us—not playfulness but its simulacrum, not possibility but manipulation.

I'm not familiar with that phrase of Heidegger's. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention.  ¶ 10:30 PM