Derek writes: "Re: "it does somewhat require your saying why you call X "art" and P not."
"But that would require me having a list of criteria for what is and what is not art. I know of no such list and have never seen oneb&. I cannot *prove* that a work is a work of art and I do not believe anyone repeat anyone - can. So why would I waste my time trying? " Derek, you altogether miss -- or sidestep -- the point of the charge against you. At no point in my posting did I ask you to "prove" that something IS a work of art. Nor did I ask for any LIST of criteria for all artworks. And I explicitly conveyed I am not asking for your definition of art. I intentionally sculpted my posting to avoid all such "global" demands because I suspected you would use them as escape hatches to evade answering. I asked that when you pronounce a given work -- X, Y Z etc --to BE art or Not art, you tell us the reason why you, Derek, at that moment, call that work art, or call it not art. I want to believe you have a reason for applying the label 'art' or 'not art' at that moment. Because if you don't, or even if you say you must have a reason but you just can't think of it right now, then I'm afraid that brands all such pronouncements of yours as effectively vacuous. ************** Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
