"Nobody needs a Theory of Art" Sarah Sampson

In the last chapter of The Nature of Art, Dominic McIver Lopes contends that "nobody needs a theory of art."  Aside from this being a complete blow to former theorists, this is almost a practical and subjective paradigm for evaluating the arts as they exist.  The basis of this class and of the book seems to be preoccupied with answering the question "what is art?"  This could almost be equated with the same uncertainty and variability in the question of "what is real?"  It seems that the main reason we should need a definition of art is to determine which museums to display the piece in, which works to integrate into education, and how much to charge for a work.  With the avant-garde movement and Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, theorists became preoccupied with putting an absolute meaning on what could be considered art as a reaction to such far out pieces.  Lopes asserts that works of art is not meant to be identified, but rather appreciated.  So can we appreciate art if we are unfamiliar the context of which the art is identified?  Sure.  We know that when we hear a certain song or look at a certain painting, it gives us pleasure.  It might evoke some kind of emotion or our dopamine levels will rise, in turn allowing us to feel a particular positive sensation toward that piece.  We also know that possessing specific knowledge can be beneficial to true appreciation and understanding of any given work. Take the phrase, "Keep Calm and Carry On."  I know that I like the message.  I also know that it will stick with me because it rhymes.  Recently, a friend told me that this popular slogan originated in Britain during WWII as a morale booster.  This blew my mind and now I appreciate the work in an entirely new way.  I researched even more about it and found out that King George VI's crown is imprinted and the font was expected to be simple yet effective.  It was developed by a civilian servant and was never released to the public because it was being saved in case Germany invaded Britain.  There are now a few original posters in the National Archives and Imperial War Museum in London and the slogan is represented on t-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers, etc.  So art can be appreciated on many levels.  Lopes recognizes Cages 4'33" as a testimony to the inconsistency between appreciation and identification.  We know music to be organized sound and are surprised to be confronted with this identified work of art by Cage that produces no such thing.  Yet people still recognize this as an aesthetic experience.  Maybe because they know who Cage is, but this does not fit the concept of music, an art.  This progressive movement into unidentifiable works leaves the subject curious as to what really is art.  I believe that if it tickles the senses and brings aesthetic or simple pleasure, then it is what it is.  The contextual knowledge of something is without a doubt a catalyst to greater appreciation and is sometimes necessary, but not always.