The only way to destroy conceptual art is to undermine the concepts

I've been thinking about the "anachronism" argument re. art. (That is: to reject conceptual art requires an old- fashioned idea of what art is that discounts all modern art since Duchamp's urinal). You could go the way of Wittgenstein's observation that the term 'game' has no fixed meaning; a lottery is a game, and so is soccer, but they have nothing in common. The term 'game' refers to a whole family of instances, some members have no common elements. The term 'art' is similar. Duchamp's Fountain has nothing in common with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. The real problem is that it is difficult to show how Da Vinci and other Renaissance artists, or the Impressionists, or any art before 1917 has anything to do with conceptual art: the latter seems completely adrift, conceptually speaking. That is, it seems an error to consider Da Vinci and et. al. (for example) to be in the same professional class. That's the corollary of the claim that a traditional definition of art (such as mine) is anachronistic.