The word can mean the totality of all forms of art, which I've stated can be subsumed by Jung's concept of play.
It can also mean only High Art, which as I argued in Part 2, cannot be properly described as "play" alone.
I considered putting forth a longer definition with special reference to Bataille's "two types of economic consumption," lining up "the reality-oriented aspect of consumption, "production and acquisition" with the dynamic of work and "the desire to pointlessly but satisfyingly expend one's energies" with the dynamic of play. But as I reread the BACK TO BATAILLE essay, the comparisons seem obvious to me given my further parallels between "the two types" and my Wheelwright-derived concepts of "assertorial gravity" and "assertorial levity." By now, anyone who's read this blog with any attention ought to be able to draw the applicable parallels.
Therefore, the second definition is as follows:
"Art is play for work's sake."
While the first, more inclusive definition would be:
"Art is play for work's sake and play for play's sake."
To quote John Keats:
"that is all /Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know"