To step back, and take an objective view of the holistic situation gives rises to a plethora of thoughts and ideas, each of them unique. In a manner, that cannot be rationaly explained. The insipid nature of some makes for stark contrast with the rest which epitomize passion, an insuppressible urge to make a difference.

Which makes way for interesting conversation.

Ideas are meaningless without expression. The nature of an idea determines the relative importance between expression and communication. The medium of expression for an idea meant to be addressed to a mass audience merits attention. On the contrary, the expression of an idea that does not serve a greater cause is fairly insulated from the medium through which it is expressed.

Now, to what i really wanted to write about.

Inspite of much deliberation, i have only managed to reach a rather insecure conclusion on medium of expression.

Art is a form of expression. The definition of art is very subjective. The word "art" has been very loosely used in various contexts which, over time, has corrupted the original significance of the word. The etymology of the word suggests its latin origins which roughly translates to "skill" and "craft". The Indo-European origins of the word points to "arrangement" or "to arrange".

But the most acceptable definition of art i could find was: (slightly modified from its original form)

Art is anything that agents add to their 'output' which is not functionally necessary and is other than the default properties of that output.

A person adds a certain unique flavour to anything he/she does. An aesthetic addition which is not a functional requirement. In this flavour we find the distinction one can bring to any existing form. Subtle, yet undeniable in its existence.

It is this expression, which when similarly interpreted by a larger section of society becomes profound communication.