
Signature
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)
> > Believe it or not; public libraries have a subject classification
> > "Animals as Artists" under Dewey Decimal call numbers 741, 750, 599
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Please *do* tell me more about this "subject classification" of
> which you speak!
The main subject classes are 'Cats--Behavior' OR 'Dogs--Behavior' See
university studies, and publications of interest to 'pet
psychologists!'
> > Have there been any university studies attempting to discern what arts
> > pique our pets interests?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> It strikes me that another problem with your thesis is that you have
> yet to define "art." Good luck with that!
Yes, dictionaries do attempt to define the meaning of the word art:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
Okay, enough said!
> --
> Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
> http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
> http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)
shelly - 14 Dec 2006 11:28 GMT
> The main subject classes are 'Cats--Behavior' OR 'Dogs--Behavior'
No way!
> See university studies, and publications of interest to 'pet
> psychologists!'
I'm not sure what a "pet psychologist" *is*, so I'm not about to
guess what sorts of publications might be of interest to one.
Googling indicates that there is a dearth of accredited institutions
offering degrees in the field.
> Yes, dictionaries do attempt to define the meaning of the word art:
Yes, dictionaries are pathological that way. And, while Wikipedia
(not a dictionary, by the way) has its uses, as scholarly source
material goes, it's pretty crap.
> Okay, enough said!
That you think so is kind of sad. It's a question that one could
spend a lifetime exploring and still never come up with a
satisfactory answer.

Signature
Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)