... but is it art?

Criticizing the robot 'EVE' as a work of art: "EVE was confronted by curators of the so-called "official art". Since Eve didn't fit in to their highly refined concept of what art is, the"not-so-beaux-arts" jury rejected Her. These deniers of beauty and craft would rather this robot resemble a tin can on legs. As a product of love designed to please the human eye, I rema...in convinced that knowledge, emotion and inspiration are the critical traits in a work of art." (Thierry Ruby) How kan one know if 'knowledge, emotion and inspiration' are the critical traits in art? How kan one determine if these qualifications are present in a current work of art? Funny thing is, that Thierry Ruby accuses a bunch of critics that they do so when they should not, or under false pretenses, and at the same time he makes the same mistake. In a way, this is a discussion about the value of institutions, or whether they have certain rights to evaluate art, not about the value of a specific work of art or art in general, which turns the argument into a fallacy.. (argumentum ad hominem) These mistakes happen remarkably often in art criticism.