I think it depends on how you define "art." My preferred definition is "that which is designed to, or succeeds at, eliciting an emotional response." In that context, I think art can be taught, to a degree. I don't think a person can be "taught" to feel something, or to desire to convey something. But a person can be taught how to better elicit emotional responses in their work, and how to better convey their intent.
That's a pretty broad definition though, isn't it? There are plenty of deliberate actions that would elicit an emotional response that aren't generally classified as art. A slap, for instance. Online trolling. Stockhausen got in trouble a few years ago for suggesting that 9/11 was the greatest work of art ever conceived. By the above reckoning, you'd have to admit that he was right. And, I guess, that his statement was in and of itself a work of art. Which who knows, it was Stockhausen. But the gist of what I'm getting at is that it's not enough simply to elicit an emotional response. How could that definition be narrowed to weed out the obvious exceptions? Your second assertion- "a person can be taught how to better elicit emotional responses from their work"- has something to it, I think. We can all learn how to articulate our feelings more. But again, is it enough just to hone your ability to elicit emotional response? Plenty of really mean, marginally intelligent people have learned to hone their tools for the best emotional response. Is it artwork when they do so? And there are limits, anyways. Somebody might learn to elicit a better response (whatever that response is) from practice, but only within the boundaries of their natural ability. Just like I might be able to practice until I can throw a ball better up to a point (a very low point, in my case), I think maybe somebody might be able to practice expression up to the point that they no longer have the necessary physical, mental or emotional hardwiring required to express themselves further. And that ability spans a huge spectrum- some people can acquire and retain the proper emotional vocabulary to express themselves beautifully, others not at all. And if we're only as good as those boundaries, don't we have to then grant that while technique can be taught to bring a person to their limit, the limit itself is in-born? In other words, if artistic ability is an in-born talent just like any other, doesn't that preclude the teaching of same?
That's a good point. The problem is, as soon as you narrow the definition, someone creates art that doesn't fit it. Music has the same problem. I had a music teacher in undergrad who asserted you could push a garbage can down a stairwell and it would be music. I don't think it can. Not everything that creates emotional response is art, just as not all sound is music. But I don't think it's possible to narrow the definition further than that, without excluding valid art.That's a pretty broad definition though, isn't it?
How could that definition be narrowed to weed out the obvious exceptions?
Yeah, I had a music teacher like that, too. I came to the conclusion that the ol' trashcan down the stairs (or whatever) is more performance art than music. But you're getting at a point that pretty much everybody here seems to be getting at, that art is just a hell of a thing to define. And until we define it, the original question is patently tricky. If we can't preclude emotional response from the definition, maybe there's a way to just add other modifiers?
Like you, I see creativity as something that is developed or cultivated rather than acquired outside of oneself. If a person doesn't have the feel for it, then all the exercises in the world won't help. I'm interested to see if you have any further ideas on how one might go about developing that instinct to create or share things.