Analysis of Weitz

Throughout the past week we have discussed the philosophy of art from the aspect of Morris Weitz. More of less I have enjoyed Morris Weitz's aspect of art because It makes me think about the past readings in regard to the intentionality thesis, Plato, and Aristotle (which we did not read, but I read the section myself, and researched about his thought toward art). Specifically I agree with his opinion that art is an open concept. Again as I have stated in the past and also in accordance to art, "Art Is an Open Concept, an idea of a thing constantly changing over time", in which there are no sufficient conditions or no definable characteristics to summarize what art really is. For an example as we discussed previously in class (Monday) a bachelor is an open concept because the definition of a "bachelor" changes over time. Specifically our understanding of a bachelor is an unmarried male that is of a marriageable age/position. The meaning of bachelor could be in reference to animals or even infant children one hundred years from now but we may never know. While on the other hand a triangle is a closed concept in which the object is three sided, closed, while containing three common line segments. A triangle will never be four sided, open (not an open concept, but an open shape), and the "triangle" will never have the lines placed straight instead of perpendicular. Since now we can distinguish that art is an "open" concept it is fair to state that there are no set of predetermined rules or are there in some cases? Since there are different types of "art" ranging from contemporary to abstract, are those specific works of art following the rules to fit into that certain genre of art? What I mean is that for an example an artist creates a piece of art and lets say that he/she sells that piece in which a museum of some sort buys the piece. As the board of directors set a meeting and decide that the piece of art is contemporary rather than abstract, does the art object follow by the rules of contemporary art or are the directors of the museum correct when deciding that the piece of art is contemporary? In each situation the two questions pose a correct answer in each outcome. First and foremost, if the art object falls into the category of contemporary art, then the object must be playing by the rules of contemporary art. Likewise the board of directors must also be correct because they possess a sufficient amount of experience and expertise towards the domain of contemporary art. So my question for anyone to answer is that does anyone also agree with Weitz's philosophy and if not what are some reasons why?