Generalization and Example

On his blog, Duncan asked: "Can art be described without any of the three though? (the three being generalization, example, and anecdote.)"

Let us assume, that art can be described without example or anecdote. Would it be possible to explain art without generalizing.  I don't believe that it's possible. Art refers to a broad range of things. Within visual art alone, there exists paintings, sculptures, etc. Then, one must consider music and literature. How can you specifically describe art without neglecting one of these categories? On the other hand, one can take generalization too far. To say that art is anything that is aesthetically stimulating would include several things that are widely considered non-art, such as nature.

Now, on to example and anecdote, which I think are the same thing as an anecdote is just a personal example. I think that, eventually, one must always return to example when trying to explain art.  For instance, let's return to the supposition that art is aesthetically stimulating. We have just defined an abstract concept with an abstract concept. Our answer is probably followed by the logical question "What does it mean to be aesthetically stimulated?" We have three options. We can try to define "aesthetically stimulated", which seems to be a difficult if not impossible task. We could state that we are aesthetically stimulated when we view art, making our definition circular. Or, we could cite an example of when the questioner probably felt aesthetically stimulated. Personally, I do not think that the first option is possible. Therefore, we must eventually reach example to have a solid conclusion.

How would you describe art to an intelligent life form that has no understanding of the concept?