Art as undefinable

I must say that after reading Weiz I can be content with the rest of the theories we discuss in class. After reading his chapter, I now share his view about art theory. As stated before, I hated art theory because I always thought what gave someone the right to say if your work of art doesn't consist of this then it isn't a work of art. Theories that we visited before implied that art is only art when it had a particular component raised by the theorist, however what Weiz presents is the best argument yet. He basically implies that trying to define art through theory is pointless, and it is. He doesn't reject art theory all together but just puts out there that art is too broad to define. I will always hold my view that anything can be art. If the person who made it deems it as art then it is art. I feel the observer does play a role in it, but who cares how critical of the work of art they are, if the artist who made the piece is happy with it then they can label it any way they want to.

I am happy to have read the theory presented by wise, because it is something i truly believe. Art cannot be truly defined. Art I believe is art and can be found anywhere if we have the eye and heart to appreciate it. Instead of following this strict rubric (theory) of trying to say what art really is. As Weiz said, don't try to answer the question what is art, but answer what are the concepts of art.

With that said I turn to my question. Today we talked about Dewey and nature and animals being conscious in creating art. Do you believe that animals create art intentionally? For example when listening to a birds song are they conscious of the beauty of the sound they are given off? Is it really song or is it just them talking to each other?