Bridge between "Truth" and "Aesthetics"

It seemed to me in class this last week that we had two discussions that raised similar points, one about "truth" and one about "aesthetics". These arguments are similar because of a common lack of a solid definition in philosophy. We said that philosophy is a passion for seeking the truth in all subjects, and yet, asking the question, "What is truth?" is too loaded to properly answer. We looked at aesthetics in the same way, knowing what aesthetics are without being able to give a concise answer to the question, "What are aesthetics?"

I raise this point because I find it interesting that we all have different concepts about what makes truth "truth" and what makes aesthetics "aesthetics", and while admitting that it may not be possible to come up with a definition that everyone can agree on for either, we must continue forward and assume a common ground by identifying those things that are not "truth" or "aesthetics" to the best of our ability when it is asserted that they are.

My question then is, "Is this what makes art?" It seems to me that art, a kind of reflection on human emotion and society, also seems incredibly difficult to define, and so it may be that art is an attempt to express the indefinable nature of "truth" and "aesthetics" by explaining them in a less direct manner. A painting can capture the "true" human emotion of what we see, while music can capture the "true" human emotion of what we hear, and writing what we think, etc., but they are only effective when they meet our "aesthetic" expectations. Can an artwork really because considered "art" if it does not?

I want to know if this attempt at describing how I view art makes sense, or if I'm committing some kind of fallacy by saying, "Well, we don't know this, and we don't know that, so we do this to do that."