The Real Academia Española defines “arte” as “Manifestación de la actividad humana mediante la cual se interpreta lo real o se plasma lo imaginado con recursos plásticos, lingüísticos o sonoros” which translates to "Manifestation of human activity through which the real is interpreted or the imagined is embodied with plastic, linguistic or sound resources." However, there are three notable criticisms of this definition:

1. **The definition is too broad and vague.** It encompasses a wide range of activities by defining art as "Manifestation of human activity." This broad definition leaves room for interpretation and doesn't provide a clear understanding of what constitutes art. Additionally, the inclusion of "plastic, linguistic or sound resources" further expands the scope, potentially including everyday activities that may not traditionally be considered art.
2. **The definition lacks specificity and clarity.** By stating that art is the "Manifestation of human activity through which the real is interpreted or the imagined is embodied," it does not provide specific criteria or examples to distinguish art from other forms of human expression. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to differentiate art from non-artistic activities or hobbies.
3. **The definition overlooks the aesthetic and emotional aspects of art.** While the definition acknowledges that art involves the interpretation of the real or the embodiment of the imagined, it fails to mention the aesthetic or emotional impact that art often seeks to evoke. Artistic expressions are often valued for their beauty, emotional power, or ability to provoke thought, but these aspects are not addressed in the given definition.

Evidence for each argument:

1. The evidence for this argument lies in the broad language used in the definition itself. The phrase "Manifestación de la actividad humana" (Manifestation of human activity) encompasses a wide range of actions, leaving room for interpretation. Additionally, the inclusion of "plastic, linguistic or sound resources" further expands the definition's scope.
2. The lack of specificity and clarity can be observed in the phrase "through which the real is interpreted or the imagined is embodied." This statement does not provide concrete criteria or examples to differentiate art from non-artistic activities, making it challenging to define art based on this definition alone.
3. The absence of any mention of aesthetics, beauty, or emotional impact in the definition is the evidence for this argument. The definition focuses on the interpretation of the real or embodiment of the imagined, but it neglects the common appreciation of art for its aesthetic qualities or its ability to evoke emotions.
spam fails_task lang_mismatch pii not_appropriate hate_speech sexual_content quality toxicity humor helpfulness creativity violence