Wow - the tone of Mr. Attah's post is so fantastically obnoxious that I don't even feel like engaging with it - but I will say that, apart from the absurdity of his seventh point (as if Bach's BWV 1127 or the recently discovered scenes from "Metropolis" somehow weren't art but suddenly became art when they were found), it's also subjectivist (he proposes to be objective while talking about "merit", "enjoyment", "excellence" etc.)
I'm not planning to storm off because I'm not expecting everyone to bow down and hail my grand unifying theory, quite on the contrary I'd like to see it crumble to bits! I think I got a bit sidetracked with this definition of artwork issue, whereas my real interest lies in the "identification with the artist" bit and the relevance of subjective taste. It would be better to take as a starting point some object that is generally agreed to be a work of art, and then examine why and how it produces aesthetic experience. Michael - about Donald Judd, it's not industrial, it's design. My fault, it was a sloppy definition. I think we can agree that cogs and screws and machine parts are industrially man-made but not art.
