At the end of Beverly Long’s article “A Distance Art” she offers Morris Weitz’s reservations concerning a theory of art. Weitz insists art theory is doomed to failure because theory attempts the impossible task of “factually or logically defining” art and any example of art is merely an ephemeral manifestation of a continually progressive genre.

Perhaps he is right. One cannot finally and conclusively identify the boundaries of those examples of expression that we call art, indeed the possibility of what may in time be called art is endless and thus unpredictable. But the word “art” remains and retains meaning; and one would have a tough time convincing me that a thing has meaning to us symbol using creatures without defining, factual, and logically identifiable attributes.

Weitz even admits that he “can list some conditions under which I can apply correctly the concept of art”. Would those applicable concepts not be the substance of a theory of art? Would not the transient nature of art be a principal in the system of ideas that constitute a theory of art? One may say that any concept or another is impossible to define but as soon as they give reason for their assertion have they not contradicted themselves? Art is indefinable because art is [by definition] transitory. God is ineffable and utterly magnificent. You don’t know me I’m unique (just like that other guy). You shut up when you’re talking to me!! (ok that last one doesn’t actually apply, it’s just funny).

Art theory is absolutely not absolute because art is certainly never certain. My position is able to be closed because it does not fall in the parameters of that which constitutes art, parameters which exist not at all (because art is after all open). Furthermore, a description of art does not count even as art theory, which is a task “doomed to failure”, and to develop art theory is just silly. My point is not contrary to Morris Weitz’s, I’ve only said it another way.