Weitz's theory of art as indefinable is not a particularly useful or helpful suggestion for the purposes of debate. However, there is something attractive about it. I think we all have the feeling that we know art already. I certainly feel that I can tell if I'm looking at art when it's in front of me. If you asked, though, I couldn't give a description of how I know. It's just something I feel.

Weitz's theory is interesting if nothing else, because rather than try to define art, it suggests we just forget about that. Defining art does not help to create art; better to just get on with it. His chapter in the book seems almost like an intrusion, though. There's not much point in saying that art is indefinable in a book which tries to catalouge different ways to look at art. Well, there is, because his opinion deserves to be heard and he has some fair points, but it seems to have been included only for posterity's sake. Obviously very few people reading the book are going to take his opinions seriously. The book seems designed to encourage debate, whereas his chapter really seems to suggest that the debate will never lead anywhere, and we should move on. It's contradictory to the concept that the book was based on.

Is it important for artists to know what is art and what is not, or how to define art? Will it help make them into better artists, or can they succeed just as well without thinking about it? How relevant is the philosophy of art to the appreciation of art?