Response to Blog- Weiz

This is a response to Shelby G.'s blog in which she poses the question:" What do you think about Weitz's view that there are no necessary and sufficient attributes of art, but you can recognize it when you see it? ...That, *this*, *this*, *this*, and 'similar things' are art? Is this a satisfactory explanation for you?"

I must say that I understand the stance that Weiz takes. Especially after giving the example of games. There are many type of games and many ways to play games making each game different from the other. However, though this is true, there is a linking characteristic that each of them has that enables them to go under the category game. If I say to you I like games, hundreds of types of things that share a particular characteristic under the category of game floods your mind. The statement I say to you is less general than the statement I like to do things, but more general than the statement I love to play card games. It starts out as I big bubble I feel (what Weiz is trying to get to us); first there is the subject of hobbies and attached to hobbies are millions of things people can do as a hobby, one being games. Then in the bubble of games you have the hundreds of different types of games and in their separate bubbles, card games for example, you would have poker, go fish, uno, bullsh**, etc. So to understand this in terms of art, I feel Weiz does a great job of getting his point across. He makes sense and for this to be a theory I feel that is satisfactory. With that said,
Would there ever be an end to art theory?