Classification and Evaluation

In response to Edward's question; "In the section 'works of art,' Telfer describes the two different ways in which the term 'works of art' is commonly used, specifically, as a classifying or evaluative term. Should the term be used in both senses or should we use on sense over the other exclusively?"

It would appear to me that, all too regularly, patrons of aesthetics confuse the evaluative and classifying sense of the term 'work of art.' Especially in the last class, Art and Philosophy, many of the philosophers would, in my opinion, disregard an art form, not based on some evaluative and logical lack of attributes, but rather from a personal dislike of the particular form.

To answer the question, I do think that we need to look at a work of art in both a evaluative and classifying function; however, it would appear prudent to me to not use the classifying sense in an effort to determine the legitimacy of a certain piece. The classifying manner in which we all experience art is of merit and deserves its own discourse, but only in the application of taste. There is a place for evaluation, and there is a place for classification; I would just have us not confuse the two.

On a completely unrelated note, Korsmeyer says that food is surely not a fine art for it does not have the correct history. Did not all fine arts begin at some point? What history is Korsmeyer suggesting that food ought to have to deserve the additional label of 'fine?'