Are the categories or classifications of "works of art" as they currently exist, sufficient or insufficient? Do they invite or discourage art


I think that the mere existence of a class such as ours shows that there is something in the classifications of what are works of art that maybe is not insufficient, but lacks some refinement. In order to identify "works of art" one must define art. Although, there are definitions out there as to what art might be, since they are not universal definitions, they thus place various works into "works of art".
I very much doubt that the purpose of these definitions, is to in any way discourage art, they are rather attempting to understand art's nature. The more one understands something the better one is able to appreciate aspects of it that are worth appreciating. Understandably,although the theory of what something's ideal purpose and its actual effect might sometimes differ, its seems that in the case of art this does not apply. Since there is not a universal definition, if one creates something which one wants others to considered art, one must simply present reasoning as to why it is art and chances are that more than a few others will also take it to be art.The discouragement of art, does not come from the classification of what it is but from whether or not, what it is has any value. For instance schools with small budgets deciding that the best things to take money way from are the art's program, therefore showing that in the eyes of their school system the value of arts is not comparable to something else.

One hears that there is a rise in appreciation of the arts, but is this really true? In our country will it ever be the case that more schools rally harder to keep their art programs or will they always be the first to go?