>>2991859Art is first of all a discipline-specific term. That means it loses any determinate meaning outside of particular institutionally legitimated discursive conventions that have contextualized it in the past.
It also exists as an overdetermined mass-cultural word or phrase, i.e. as a contemporary ideological form, which is the way that it is being used ITT.
Art finally refers to an attribute used to categorize cultural activity in the past. In other words, as a strictly HISTORICAL (past-tense) predicate that is used in the construction of historical narratives.
>>2991865You have that the wrong way around, there's a form of epistemology revolving around a whole branch of philosophy (aesthetics), which itself is a historically grounded (i.e. socio-economically and geopolitically contingent) phenomenon. "Art" is always an a posteriori assumption.
>But European and Asian cultures have had a long, long history of promoting Artyou're making a gross error in judgment by casually conflating european and asian cultures like that. And the appeal to historicity belies the point you're trying to make regarding the conceptual cohesiveness of "art"; 美術 was a thoroughly modern invention after all.
