Kate asks: "Well, why can't everyone else do that too [i.e. "use the word 'art' to label all and only those works that give [the speaker] what [he/she] thinks of as an aesthetic experience."], instead of having to interrupt themselves explaining what they meant to you-you , Cheerskep."
Hey, I'd be for that. But I suspect very few listers would agree to use the word 'art' that way. Note again: None of us would be saying, "This is what art IS!" We'd know there is no mind-independent quality/collection/activity etc that "IS" "art"; any more than there IS sin, miracles, genius, etc; but at least by restricting the intended scope of notions behind the word 'art' we might come closer to "understanding" one another. > There's a crucial distinction here: It's between saying, "I'd call that > art," and "I say that IS art." Whether we are talking about an > activity, a > work, collection, talent, or "quality", etcetera, I would never > seriously say, > "That IS art," in the sense of imputing to it some mind-independent > ontic > status. > > But I might say, "In this conversation I will use the word 'art' to > label > all and only those works that give me what I think of as an aesthetic > experience." > > Well, why can't everyone else do that too,instead of having to > interrupt themselves explaining what they meant to you-you ,Cheerskep.
