Response to Nicole's question of Weitz

I believe the importance of importance of this outlook is captured in Weitz' phrase what gives it aesthetic importance "lies behind the formula". It is not that the denial dismisses the import of the conclusion, the definition, or the formula that explains the observed aesthetic theory that  is the consequence of analysis under unique conditions. But that in fact that such a denial is necessary to understand how the unique conditions in which each theorist formulates hypothesis from and the relationship between what is observed and what is theorized. 


I think we should take a  more liberal approach to understanding the concept of "human made" so that if we see the Mona Lisa or a firefly in a piece of driftwood, then it is art. because our perception has been fashioned in a way which predisposes us to see the lines, colors, combinations and relations of as these real objects.


I think we can conclude that each person can derive some abstract or altered image of any object in our world and thus because our perception incorporates such experiences with objects into vastly different mental conceptions we are in a sense rendering such objects "human made". 


I think Weitz points out clearly that the classification of something as art, just as classifying something as a novel, solely and fallaciously lies on the comparison of other works that are described as a novel or art. I think that to classify driftwood as art or not, should not rest on its comparison to other works of art, but on investigation of the parts of the individuals which have been assimilated in a way that alters are perception of the driftwood, into art or not, but I agree that to characterize something as art based on a definition is missing to point.


We are investigating the relationship between people's perception, worldly objects, and the alteration and evolution of our conceptions through the relation between perception, objects, and the continued experience of there consistent intersection.