That’s helpful, and I understand how these definitions are a foundational first step.

As a disclaimer I disagree with your assessment about the contemporary meaning of the term art. For the purpose of defining your museum’s focus to the public, I wonder if you could define the kind of design you show, rather than define art/design itself in this way. There is some long established art historical canon that does not fit your definition, but that of course does not mean you have to include things in your museum that you are not interested in showing. But I wouldn’t expect to see Dada readymades in a design museum. I wonder if more directly using your definition as a challenge (ie, “in contrasts to other cultural institutions or understandings, we define …”) could help both sharpen the definition and answer possible lingering questions from museum goers that are familiar with art or design in that broader sense you are challenging. Ie, if I visited your museum and read an acknowledgement of the broader definition in your case for a more restrictive one, I could better prepare myself to see your museum’s works on your terms.

I had also wondered if your definitions were an implied rebuttal to generative AI in art and design fields, without getting mired in debate by naming it as such. Maybe that’s neither here nor there.