Analysis of "When Is Art" (Not "What is Art")

The question that is presented at the beginning of this week's reading is "When is Art" from the perspective of Nelson Goodman. Now not to confuse anyone with "What is Art" (What defines art etc.) but in general "When is Art" mainly argues that the philosophy of art is not what makes an object a work of art but when it becomes a work of art. In addition an object of art as Wartenberg states is a work of virtue, not of some special property it possesses, but rather how it is employed. However leading to the question when does art actually become art. Does an object become a work of art when the artist makes his/he final touch on the specific piece or is the object a work of art from the beginning such as the example of "White Fog" which is a blank "white" canvas that has been untouched on display at Mass Museum of Contemporary Art? As Goodman states, an object of art must function as a symbol, something that it can do in some context in others. He also gives a perfect example that a "Rembrandt" (painting) may not be a work of art when it replaces a broken window but can be a work of art when displayed in a museum, meaning that an art object has the potential to become "art" instead of being an object of necessity. Honestly his logic of this subject matter is unique in which I have never though when art actually becomes absolutely "art". But Goodman is correct when art should have to symbolize something it can do in some contexts but not in others. This statement is also confusing because is he contradicting himself in the previous example? So when would art symbolize something it can do in some contexts but not in others? Does that mean that the meaning of an art object is not fixed, assuming to be constant? First and foremost my personal definition of art is the collection of human emotions, most specifically the emotions the artist is experiencing at the given moment,and with those emotions project most importantly, the artists' state of mind projected on canvas etc. Now how this statement of mine can be related to Goodman is that an artist can have these emotions function only at certain times and other times it cannot? This does not make any sense whatsoever. therefore it must be nonsense or a contradiction which is more common and respectful than assuming an influential philosophers' logic is "nonsense". However from Wartenberg's perspective in addition to Goodman's ideas, he believes that works of art do not constitute a special class of object, although they do have certain types of properties that single them out, rather they are objects we approach in a specific way. This is a helpful statement because many critics of art (including myself) try to place art into a specific class like fitting a puzzle piece into a complex jigsaw puzzle. I do not know if this is natural for humans to classify to judge it but maybe it could be a lack of experience on my part in regards to art. However not to wander off into a completely different direction, what does Goodman truly mean (In laments terms) when art must function as a symbol, something that it can do in some contexts but not in others?