I think you're making the same category of error of which you accuse the_duck, albeit in the opposite direction, when you say "that art has happened" or claimin

I think you're making the same category of error of which you accuse the_duck, albeit in the opposite direction, when you say "that art has happened" or claiming that field recording is art, or reverently quoting Yan Jun drawing an equivalence between pushing a record button and Bach. You dropped the word "valid", but you're still making assertions about what is and is not art. Collectively, humans don't always agree about what is art. One option is to simply always be agnostic about what is and is not art. Then there's no argument. Another option is to claim that there does exist some dividing line. And if you want to come to an agreement with anyone about that dividing line, it's hilariously delusional to miss the fact that there does not exist a broad consensus about when it is appropriate to use that word, and you need to construct that agreement. And if you want to do that, the idea of "valid art" is essential; blithely saying "that art has happened" is disingenuous at best. Me, I choose to be agnostic about what is art. I don't understand the value of agreeing about it (except, perhaps, for the purpose of bureaucratic allocation of grants and funding). But even having taken that position, Dutton's ideas about a 12-factor model seem pretty interesting, as a sociological investigation of what other criteria other humans seem to use.