For some reason
I actually thought that there actually did exist some sort of ontological dispute taking place through or under the guise of an ostensibly linguistic dispute about the definition of art, as manifested by recent lawsuits involving appropriation artists.
Silly me.
It all comes down to money.
Why did I think I could place art in a category that operates differently from others? 
Even though I made conscious and even performatively public criticisms against the infiltration of money into the way in which our cultural products are distributed and legitimized…
For some reason
I thought my discovery of the intersections between law, language, art, philosophy, and other abstract ways in which we understand the world around us was somehow special. Law, especially, because I had never quite understood anything about it until recently.
Art is the same. Money dictates its operations. 
What I had given superficial attention turned out to be a horrible monster, which I am happy I did not endorse so enthusiastically—the rich are winning the copyright litigations and “redefining” the “definition of art”! 
Is this a good thing for art or is it just the victory of those with money?
I can’t tell if it pushes art to go further and into another kind of territory, or if it merely demonstrates the reach of capitalism’s power into a variety of realms such as art and other cultural affairs. 

It feels good to rant again.
But probably another long silence will pass.