Carroll Q&A #2

Carroll's Narrative theory is based in linking candidates for art to legitimate predecessors.  How would this theory work for "animal art," or would it be applicable at all?

I personally think Carroll's theory does not apply to animal art.  The linkages Carroll supposes that we connect art candidates to is based on the presupposition that it is "legitimate." How do we know that it's legitimate?? Carroll is vague about this claim, although I can say with fairly strong  certainty that there is an implied premise that underlies this assertion that some art forms and styles are legitimate.  This premise would be that, one reason we can say with certainty that that work of art, or that style of art, is legit, is simply because we (humans) made it.  Humans created said art, and therefore, some humans do exist that have mastered the concepts of the art, and can distinguish it from non art, or even bad art.  In this case, living experts in cubism, for example, can claim it to be art, and a legitimate artform, because they created it, mastered it, and can distinguish it from other art or non art that seems similar to it.  

It is for this reason that I would say animal art does not apply to Carroll's theory.  Humans do not create Animal art, so how can we link new animal art to legitimate animal art, if we have not created it?  I would say that there is no way for humans to safely and confidently state that "this bird art" is art, because it is distinctly reminiscent of the classical form of "nest art forms" that the most artistic birds create.. I think Carroll's theory is exclusively applicable to human art, as it should be.