> But it is true of all the arts that narrative is a potential factor of the artwork. You lost me there. Either you're saying nothing (everything has potentia

> But it is true of all the arts that narrative is a potential factor of the artwork. You lost me there. Either you're saying nothing (everything has potential for a narrative), or you're not making sense. There is "anti-art" [1], which is art, so you will never be able to say one conclusive thing about all art. Just say something that you want to be true about art, and I'll instantly create some new art that goes against it. Stop trying to define art using analytical terms, and stop assigning random properties to it. We've had Wittgenstein to show that this is all nonsense [2], and now we have vector embeddings to show that all these concepts are potentially no more than social constructs. Trying to reduce that complexity to a few simple rules is just folly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-art [2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familien%C3%A4hnlichkeit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familien%C3%A4hnlichkeit