When is Art?

In this week's topic of discussion, Goodman is brought into question in his proposition that we should question not what art is, but when art is. If there is so much controversy over what makes a piece of work art, then why should we bother trying to define it as art or not? Wouldn't it be easier not to try to define what art is, but rather distinguish when a piece of artwork and when it is not?

In the text, Goodman argues the symbolic properties of a rock and when it is art. When a rock is lying on a driveway, one can safely assume that it is not functioning as a piece of art, because there is no symbolic duty that the rock must fulfill. It must simply lay there and perform it's rock-like function. However, if that rock was brought into a museum and showcased as a piece of artwork, then it must have symbolic functioning it must fulfill. The viewer, then, must look upon that rock with artistic intent: What is it's texture? What shape does it take form? What color is the rock? How is the rock relating to the other objects in the room? The rock may not necessarily be art in the driveway, but in the museum, it performs the function of artwork because there exists symbolic function.

My question is, "Goodman brings up the proposition that when a Rembrandt work is hung in replacement for a window, it is not considered art. However, can’t it perform both duties of being a window and also a work of art simultaneously because the viewer can still look upon it as a piece of art in their own home?"