It is not possible I could disagree with this MORE.
To make the argument that art is not "reducible" is tantamount to say that art cannot be discussed and cannot be analyzed. HUH?
The fact that art (small a) of any kind elicits reactions may or may not be a definition of its validity, but if a certain piece of sculpture or drawing leads people to think/feel, etc. it certainly takes on a life past it's dimensions (be they one, two or three).
At that point, when one or more persons are seeing, listening, touching, thinking, feeling, etc. they are interacting with this thing, this thing that may or may not be art. When they take the next step, which is inevitable with animals that communicate, they share these feelings about this "thing" with other people. Generally they use words, sometimes not. Right there, at that precise moment people are using words (be they printed text or vocalizations) to express their reactions to this thing art is being reduced to conversation. To argue, as Ms.Eliot has done above, that ART (capital letters here) is somehow estranged from this conversation and other conversations, and cannot really be discussed in any context borders on the delusional. It is denying reality to say that art cannot be debated; cannot be discussed.
Art, whatever it may be to whomever experiences it, often elicits. Period. No matter what our opinion may be, any experience we have in life effects us, and sometimes in profound ways. It is insane to imagine we are somehow unable to discuss something because of the depth of that experience.