> I think the argument is there is a distinction to be made between signs that were made for practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that we

> I think the argument is there is a distinction to be made between signs that were made for practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were made to be pretty. That still fails to distinguish between "art" and "not-art". Your faulty assumption is that art can not serve a practical purpose.