Outsiders, as you put it, actually do come up with their own definitions all the time in every category of human activities.
There are many art worlds and each his its own social context, 'rules of the game' and boundaries although there's plenty of overlap and blurring. Aesthetic issues can't ever be fully separated from market issues because markets measure the ways by which social groups interact and define their activities and beliefs. If courts decide market issues in art, they are by implication also deciding aesthetic issues but while their decisions may bind the market issue they don't bind the aesthetic issue. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, June 12, 2012 1:00:51 AM Subject: Re: "Blur the definition of art and it doesn't take long for legal disputes to arise..." On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:50 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > These are property disputes, money disputes, not art disputes. Judges > routinely > decide on property and money issues. Another non-issue presented as > sensational. > Ho-hum. > wc > But if insiders can't reach a consensus as to how to define what they do, than won't that be perceived by outsiders as an invitation to come up with some kind of definition of their own? I would think that insiders would want to avoid that at all costs.
