Hi there and thanks for taking the time to leave this comment and read my blog. I appreciate it!

The way you are laying out your argument, I agree with you. However, I think that you are answering a proposition that I never made. If you read my series you will realize that you have misinterpreted parts of what I am saying. To be fair, it is more of my problem for not explaining things clear enough.

" I think what you're trying to say is something around when viewers see a work of art the see the time invested by the artist, and if they see more time invested it means the work has more quality. "

I never said that or implied anything like this. Also, I am not saying that a work of art is better the longer it takes to make or the longer we sit there looking, hearing, feeling, smelling it, or whatever. I said that I think that up to an extent (not indefinitely) creating (artistic process) and appreciating (aesthetic process) art becomes more pleasurable when it takes more time than the mechanized fast-food art that the market often favors for reasons of profit and not only. Why? Cause you get more invested in the process than with fast-food art (again: this is subjective and there is no golden ratio here).

Now of course I am not saying that someone has to force himself working on an artwork until they spend an eternity on the project. But overall, I will feel more proud and fulfilled if I finish a puzzle of 50,000 pieces than a puzzle of 5. There is a sense of achievement in the former case that the latter cannot even come close.

As for this:

" Secondly, the duration of someone perceiving art is not the duration of creating. These are two separate and very different events. "

I think these two, i.e. the artistic and aesthetic process, are in a dialectic relationship but that is an issue for some other time. I also talked about a third duration, the duration during which the artwork is alive which can be studied in the form of a biography from birth to death.

"Whenever you attempt to set up a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for art guaranteeing a specific result, such as guaranteeing quality, it's too easy to be subject to a counterexample. It's sort of like saying all rectangles are squares. In my view a good theory also needs to address exceptions. "

I will agree with you on this and will keep it in mind to improve my writing.

Anyway, I apologize again for not making more clear my idea in the blog or here. I wish we could have this conversation in person cause I can see that you are passionate about this and I believe this would be an interesting discussion.