> I never claimed that my analysis would have universal value Let me quote your own words to you: "It still doesn't qualify as aesthetically interesting." and

> I never claimed that my analysis would have universal value Let me quote your own words to you: "It still doesn't qualify as aesthetically interesting." and "photos in the article have very little aesthetic value and elicit no contemplative experience" These are your opinions masquerading as universal truths. > What I am trying to do is to arrive at a definition of art through first principles. And you ended up with "art is what people call art"? Deep.