(How can one ask the question of whether an artist is this or that art can be thus? The question implies the answer (or at least a judgement), it has been identified as art in the question.
Deconstructive- Plato writting refferences to speech, as being engraved upon our souls, etc. The question already deconstucts the answer.)one might say something like no art without intentions and no intentions without artists.

Thus a rudimentary and uninformative definition of ‘artist’ is a person who has a certain kind of ‘intention’. //Art is established (or ordained) after the artists death, the author of his work is institutional covered by the ‘death’ mask of inanimate artist. KOSUTH?// For this definition to be usefully developed one has to find out the type and character of the intention. Are the intentional *GAMES* aspects of the artist to do with intending to make a thing as a work of art? Or, if we said the intention was to make a work of art, are we characterizing the act here as being motivated by different intentions? Do we imply a difference in meaning when we talk of making a thing as a work of art and when we talk of making a thing into a work of art?

(Metaphysical) //or CHOICE//

Choice always choice
Can works of art, besides being made as or into (works of art), be converted into works of art? Or is ‘converted’ here a more or less precise synonm for ‘made as’ or ‘made into’, or ‘made as’ and ‘made into’? The discussion here would centre upon notions of ‘made’.

The intentions of whom? The artist or the spectator? The artist and spectator? Are the intentional aspects of the artist to do with intending to make a thing, to make a thing as a work of art (and/or into a work of art), to make a work of art? (These latter questions are contextual of further questions such as, if the artist sets out to make a work of art, is it a work of art no matter whether it is good or bad, a painting or a shoe to be worn?) Are the in-
tentional aspects of the spectator to do with intending to see a thing as a work of art, and/or intending to see a thing into a work of art? And the latter acknowledging the rather strained attachment involved in the term see a thing into. Can seeing be interpreted as ‘making’ in this context?

If this piece of paper is asserted as a work of art, in asserting this can the artist be said to be making something? Or is he, in a sense, merely a spectator? If the piece of paper can be asserted as an art work, is the art something the artist ‘gives’ or imparts to the paper when he nominates it? (The equation of assertion with nomination here has an entrenched ‘found object’ precedent.) Or is the art already there and he merely (in a sense) ‘discovers’ it? Which leads us back to question five above.

Is the concept ‘creativeness’ concerned with ‘making’ and with ‘discovering’, or with //An artist ‘makes’ a thing INTO art. A viewer ‘makes’ a thing as a work of art.
INTO- Performative
-Dialectic

as a Representation// one or the other?

How does the artist ‘know’ that this piece of paper can even qualify to enter the domain where it may count as a work of art? (I apologise for the use of ‘where’ with its stringent spatio-temporal qualification and point out that its use is similar to that when someone asks of a biological species where in biological classification it can be found.)

Why not ask a watchmaker or a carpenter the same? Implications of Quality?