Answer to Blog - William Trial

This is a response to William Trial's blog. He raises a similar question to mine and one that we are supposedly going to find out in this course, which is What makes art, art? Like I mentioned in class and in my previous blog I deep down with everything I have believe it is all about taste and knowledge of the subject. One thing I have to ask, and I pray that the professor won't fail me for (just kidding) is what is the point of philosophy? We try to study art in its artness, music in its musicness and religion in its diviness, but when it boils down to reality, we are never going to know everything bout a particular subject and I feel that is what philosophers are trying to do. I have a Power of Words class and in it I am reading this book called "How to develop your thinking ability?" I read a chapter the other day, called Only God Knows All (which I believe is true.) In the chapter it says, "The people who make the most adequate verbal maps are those who are thoroughly aware of the incompleteness of their knowledge." It is preposterous to try and find out everything about something and that is what I feel like this subject is trying to do. I am in no way bashing the subject, but to answer the question what is art and what makes art, art can be called impossible. TO evaluate the means of which people have tried to get to this answer would be a more acceptable notion. Like I said before, I do believe what someone deems as art should be looked at as so even if someone else disagrees. I do believe we will become more knowledgeable about theories, but to answer these questions (attempt to answer these questions) can be compared to running around in a circle; you are back where you started. SO with this said, how may we answer these questions (what is art, what makes art) if they are unanswerable?