The theory that all art is imitation is a good starting point to deciphering what exactly art is, but it is not the cornerstone, contrary to Plato, Aristotle, and Batteux's beliefs may be. Batteaux's Single Principle of the fine arts suggests that all art is an imitation of beautiful nature conveyed through colors, relief, and attitudes. An obvious counterargument to that theory is music. As one of the fine arts Music, in general, is not imitative. Possibly earlier chanting rituals could be related to imitative animal sounds, as Carroll suggests, and even Rap artists from today such as DMX might fit in this category; who imitate animal sounds in their music, whether it be by barking, or even cooing like a pigeon. But to suggest that symphonies that were in existence at the time of Batteaux's text are imitative is absurd.
             Most of the early theories on art are irrelevant to today's work, the definitions don't seem to have a very long shelf life as the artists are constantly trying to outdo the philosophers. It's almost like a game. To classify all art under one category is a daunting and in my opinion futile task. Consider all the different genres of art, from music to painting to sculpture to dance to film, and then from there, divide those into their own respective genres, abstract, symbolist, surrealist, et al. There cannot be a single definition for all forms of art today. In each philosophy's time, I'm sure they were fairly accurate in the theory of their art, but to think of relating these primitive theories to today's art is absurd, to say the least.
             Neo-representationalism is the closest theory of art in the first readings. To say that art has to be about something is very accurate, art has a purpose, it is created for a reason, therefore it is about something. To be able to classify such difficult art pieces such as ready-mades is an impressive feat, but all art is not cooperative with this theory either. Just as there ...