perhaps, but none of that really contradicts what I said. Just that there's little use for any kind of objective classification system for "art" and "not art" t

perhaps, but none of that really contradicts what I said. Just that there's little use for any kind of objective classification system for "art" and "not art" to a curator. Just a fuzzy wuzzy wibbly wobbly sense of what is culturally significant, valued, and/or a "good investment". None of which has much to do with what you might think of as reasoning about "is" and "is not". The question is never asked. There's no point to it. No value in the asking. That's an "art critic's" job. not a Curator's job. And even in Art Criticism, since the dawn of "Post Modernism" there's been an implicit almost non verbal agreement to never ever question the "Art"-ness of something. It's never about whether it is or is not. Only what an artist is attempting to say, or what you are able to grasp from a work. To question the is-ness is boring and pedestrian, and marks you immediately as someone who is not really clued in. Questioning whether something is art or "Art" with a capital A is kind of equivalent to an ad hominem. It has nothing to do with anything. It's name calling. It's not taking the argument or the artwork for what it is.